Preamble

The House—after the Adjournment on 29th May for the Whitsuntide Recess—met at a quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Private Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely,

Dover Corporation Bill [Lords].

Birmingham Corporation Bill [Lords].

Liverpool Corporation Bill [Lords].

Bills to be read a Second time.

Provisional Order Bills (Standing orders applicable thereto complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing

Orders, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely,

Grimsby Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Provisional Order Bill.

Bill to be read a Second time Tomorrow.

Post Office Sites Bill [Lords] (No further Standing Orders applicable),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, no further Standing Orders are applicable thereto, namely, Post Office (Sites) Bill [Lords].

Gravesend and Milton Waterworks Bill [Lords],

Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Wolverhampton Corporation Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

Axbridge Rural District Council Bill,

South Staffordshire Water Bill [Lords],

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Fishguard and Goodwick Urban District Council Bill [Lords],

Lee Conservancy Catchment Board Bill [Lords],

Read a Second time, and committed.

London County Council (Money) Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Thursday.

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Ramsey and Saint Ives Joint Water District) Bill,

Pier and Harbour Provisional Order (Gloucester) Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

London and North Eastern Railway Order Confirmation Bill [Lords] (by Order), Considered; to be read the Third time

To-morrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

RATIONS.

Mr. DAY: asked the Secretary of State for War the daily average cost per head of victualling the personnel of the Army for the years 1912 and 1913, and for the years 1934 and 1935; and what substantial changes have taken place during these periods with regard to the quality or quantity of the food supplied?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Duff Cooper): The approximate daily figures at home are 7.9d. for 1912, 7.8d. for 1913, 9.17d. for 1934 and 9.37d. for 1935. It is not possible to make a direct comparison between the quality and quantity of the present day ration and that in issue before the War, but the allowance for articles of diet, other than bread and meat, has been approximately doubled since 1913, and this increase, after allowing for increase in market prices, undoubtedly and designedly gives the troops a higher standard of ration.

Mr. DAY: Why is chilled meat supplied to the troops at the present time, whereas British meat was previously supplied?

RECRUITING.

Mr. LEWIS: asked the Secretary of State for War how many recruits have been obtained for the Regular Army since the beginning of the current year; and the corresponding figure for last year?

Mr. COOPER: The number of recruits obtained for the Regular Army during the first five months of this year was 10,371, and in the corresponding period of last year 12,229.

Mr. LEWIS: Does the Minister still think there is hope that we shall get

the recruits required to complete the establishment this year?

Mr. COOPER: I should not like to abandon hope.

Mr. GEORGE GRIFFITHS: Will you ever be able to get them until you remove margarine from the dietary?

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

SMALLHOLDING, TARBERT.

Mr. G. HARDIE: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether in view of the improvements made by successive occupiers on the smallholding at Woodhouse, Tarbert, Argyll, including 6½ acres tile draining, convoying a water supply to the holding, building an additional room, erecting a large wooden shed, lining ceiling of dwelling-house, enlarging kitchen fireplace, and fitting in range, etc., he will arrange for its continuance as a small land holding and prevent these improvements being taken over without compensation by the landowner?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Godfrey Collins): My information as to the circumstances is that a voluntary agreement as to compensation was arrived at between the landlord and the outgoing tenant. I understand that the dwelling-house is dilapidated, and as the landlord is not bound by law to re-let the holding, I cannot take any action in the matter.

Mr. HARDIE: Has the Scottish Office no power at all to safeguard crofting tenants in such parts as Tarbert?

Sir G. COLLINS: The tenant could have made a claim to the land court, but decided not to do so, I presume on his own initiative. If the hon. Member has any further information and will send it to me, I shall be happy to look into it.

Mr. HARDIE: Is it not a fact that the Scottish Office has the powers, and has exercised them in the past, in cases where poverty struck, as it struck in this case, in order to save a man who was doing valuable work on the land?

Sir G. COLLINS: The tenant had his rights, and could have appealed to the land court, had he desired to do so. He


did not do so, and I presume he did not think it desirable.

Mr. HARDIE: He had not the money.

POOR RELIEF.

Mr. MATHERS: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) the amount paid out in public assistance in Linlithgowshire for the year ended on the latest convenient date and similar particulars for the preceding five years, showing the number of persons involved in each period;

Year.
Total expenditure on poor relief for year ended 15th May.
Number of poor persons, including dependants, in receipt of relief on 15th May.


West Lothian.
Edinburgh.*
West Lothian.
Edinburgh.*





£
£




1930
…
…
63,828
385,284
3,286
14,048


1931
…
…
60,212
344,400
3,581
16,543


1932
…
…
65,992
391,560
4,166
16,730


1933
…
…
74,749
377,613
4,321
19,147


1934
…
…
78,786
402,462
4,742
20,237


1935
…
…
90,438
437,702
4,885
22,357


* Separate figures for Leith are not available.

OATS (PRICE, ABERDEEN).

Mr. BARCLAY-HARVEY: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the price of oats in Aberdeen on 1st June, 1936, 1935 and 1925?

Sir G. COLLINS: The price of oats at Aberdeen on 1st June, 1936, was 4s. 10d. per cwt., and on 1st June, 1935, 6s. 8d. per cwt. The Department's records of the price of oats at Aberdeen date only from the year 1929; the price at Mont-rose, the nearest market for which records are available, was 9s. 6d. per cwt. on 1st June, 1925.

DESTRUCTION OF FOOD.

Mr. MATHERS: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland particulars of any instances brought to his notice during the last 12 months of food of any description fit for human consumption having been destroyed; whether he will state the reasons in each case for the destruction; whether action was taken under his authority before or since the food was destroyed; and whether it is his intention to seek any further powers he may have found necessary to prevent such waste?
(2) the total amount paid out by public assistance committees in Edinburgh and Leith, if possible separately, for the year ended on the latest convenient date and similar information for the preceding five years, showing the number of persons in each period?

Sir G. COLLINS: As the answers involve a number of figures I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate them in the OFFICIAL EEPOET.

Following are the figures:

Sir G. COLLINS: According to the information possessed by the Scottish Departments concerned, the position in Scotland for the year ended 31st May, 1936, is as follows: Approximately 1,200 tons of herring and 50 tons of other fish were destroyed at ports in Scotland. These amounts represent less than ½ per cent. of the total landings in Scotland, namely, 275,000 tons. The principal reasons were that supply was in excess of market demand, and that the fish was of poor quality. There was also a small quantity of milk which could not be utilised economically on non-school days. I am not aware of any other instances. I have no authority to take any action in the matter. As regards the last part of the question I would refer the hon. Member, so far as fish is concerned, to the answers given to similar questions by the hon. Member for Bradford, Central (Mr. Leach) on 25th May and the right hon. Member for the Western Division of Stirling and Clackmannan (Mr. Johnston) on 26th May.

Mr. MATHERS: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the position, for example, as it prevailed at Lerwick last


Saturday, when 2,500 crans of herring were unsold, when an appeal was made by telegram to the Herring Board and a reply was received after 16 hours, saying that a letter was being sent? The letter will hardly be there now. Does he think that that is a satisfactory way to deal with important foodstuffs, or does he claim that those herring were also of bad quality?

Sir G. COLLINS: I have looked into the matter and have given it consideration this morning. It is not free from difficulty. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Herring Board is fully alive to the serious consequences of such instances.

Mr. T. JOHNSTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the recommendations of the board that so many fishing boats should not be congregated at one port at one time are being disregarded, and does that not necessarily mean gluts of fish at one port while starvation may exist at another?

Sir G. COLLINS: From the information I have—and I speak subject to correction—I gather that the main reason was that there was an exceptionally large catch of fish outside that port on that particular day. It appears to be very difficult for any amount of skilled organisation to overcome that transitory difficulty.

Sir ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: May I ask, while supporting the statement made from the other side by the right hon. Gentleman for West Stirling (Mr. T. Johnston), if the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland will bring to the notice of the proper authorities the point that it is in any case wrong to allow boats to go to sea to catch immature fish three weeks before the season opens?

Mr. LEONARD: In respect to the part of the right hon. Gentleman's reply which dealt with milk, could not some method be devised to distribute the milk on non-school days?

Sir G. COLLINS: I will bring that point before the Milk Marketing Board.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Would the right hon. Gentleman answer the question put by the hon. Member for Farnham (Sir A. M. Samuel)?

Sir G. COLLINS: I have already looked into this matter this morning, and I will bring it to the notice of the Herring Industry Board to see what steps can be taken to achieve what we all desire.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

SELLING SCHEMES.

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: asked the Secretary for Mines whether the district selling organisations to be set up under the Coal Mines Act, 1930, will be under an obligation to supply coal of the quality required by the consumers?

Mr. MUFF: asked the Secretary for Mines whether, in any selling schemes under Part I of the Coal Mines Act, 1930, he will insert provisions to ensure that there shall be an obligation to supply coal of the description and quality required; that there shall be no unfair discrimination as between one consumer and another; and that there shall be a right of appeal to some impartial and judicial tribunal in order to guarantee that the consumer shall be protected?

Sir PERCY HARRIS: asked the Secretary for Mines whether the proposed district selling organisations will be under a statutory obligation similar to that imposed upon gas, water, and electricity undertakers, to the effect that no undue preference should be shown to any consumer or class of consumers?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Captain Crookshank): I would remind the hon. Members that Parliament has conferred no power on me to insert provisions in the schemes in force under Part I of the Coal Mines Act, 1930. The initiative in this matter rests with the coalowners. I have no reason to believe that consumers will be unable, in the future, to obtain the coal they require, but I do not think it is practicable, in the case of a raw material like coal, to make it a statutory obligation that the description and quality asked for must be supplied. I would, however, refer the hon. Members to the provision in the draft Orders now before the House for ensuring the maintenance of quality. With regard to the possibility of discrimination between consumers, the basis of the operation of these schemes must be fairness and equity, and if in any case there is unfair discrimination the consumer has a right


of appeal to Committees of Investigation which have already been set up in each district, in accordance with the provisions of Section 5 of the 1930 Act, to deal with complaints from consumers.

Sir P. HARRIS: Would the hon. and gallant Gentleman consider inserting a Clause in the new Bill, which I understand is to be introduced in the autumn, giving him power to prevent undue preference to certain consumers, so as to secure that public utility societies will buy coal at the right price?

Captain CROOKSHANK: I have dealt in my answer with the position as it is to-day, with the existing powers. Any question of future powers is another matter.

Mr. MABANE: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether the coal-owners or the consumers will be the judges of the quality that the consumers require?

Mr. WHITE: Is the Minister fully seized of the fact that there is grave anxiety on the part of consumers and undertakers, and will he take that fact fully into consideration with a view to making what modifications may be necessary?

Captain CROOKSHANK: I assure the hon. Member that that fact had not escaped my notice, but there will be an opportunity of discussing these matters when the draft Orders relating to the Central Scheme come up for approval in this House, and I think it will be within the Rules of Order to raise all these points there, where they can be much better dealt with than by question and answer at the present moment.

Mr. MABANE: May I have a reply to my question?

Mr. WHITE: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he will cause to be set up in each district, in connection with the selling schemes under the Coal Mines Act, 1930, an effective tribunal to deal with complaints as to undue preference and other matters arising from the working of the schemes?

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he can make any statement in respect of any further safeguards for coal consumers under the coal selling schemes proposed to be set up under the Coal Mines Act, 1930?

Captain CROOKSHANK: Consumers will be entitled to appeal to the Committees of Investigation set up in accordance with the provisions of Section 5 of the Coal Mines Act, 1930. I have already informed the Conjoint Conference of Public Utility Undertakings that I am prepared to consider any suggestions they may make, within the limits imposed by the Statute, for strengthening these committees, and I shall, of course, be prepared to give careful consideration to similar suggestions made by any other bodies.

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: Will my hon. and gallant Friend give an undertaking that, when the new Coal Mines Bill is introduced in the autumn, opportunity will be taken to insert the safeguards required?

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) always supported the setting up of the investigating committee under the Agricultural Marketing Bill, which was the only safeguard that the consumers had?

Mr. SPEAKER: Sir Percy Harris.

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: On a point of Order. I asked a supplementary question, and there was a facetious comment from the benches opposite. May I have an answer?

Captain CROOKSHANK: I am not prepared to assume, as my hon. Friend does at the moment, that there are no safeguards.

Sir P. HARRIS: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he will arrange, in connection with the new district selling organisations, that public utility undertakers and other large users of coal shall have access to the prices at which different classes of coal are sold to different classes of consumers?

Captain CROOKSHANK: I am not prepared to press upon the coal industry a proposal which would, in effect, mean a complete disclosure to their customers of all their commercial transactions.

Mr. A. JENKINS: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he will take steps to include a provision in the proposed central and district selling schemes


to spread the liability of maintaining the export coal trade over the whole industry, and also arrange for the draft schemes to be made available to Members of Parliament before he agrees to them?

Captain CROOKSHANK: In answer to the first part of the question, I would refer to the reply I gave on 26th May to the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) and to the reply given to-day to the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson). I am not prepared to accept the proposal contained in the second part of the question. Under the provisions of the Coal Mines Act, 1930, it is provided that the detailed amendments of the schemes within the scope of the draft Orders which have been laid before Parliament shall be approved by the Board of Trade.

FLOODING, SOUTH-WEST DURHAM

Mr. W. JOSEPH STEWART: asked the Secretary for Mines whether anything has been done to deal with the problem of flooding in the mining area of South-West Durham; whether anyone has been appointed to make a special survey of this area; and, if so, when will a report be issued?

Captain CROOKSHANK: Yes, Sir In August last the South-West Durham Reconstruction and Development Board appointed an eminent mining engineer to make an industrial survey of the coal mines in South-West Durham, with special reference to the water problem. I understand that this gentleman's report is likely to be ready for submission to the board at the end of next month.

MINING ROYALTIES.

Mr. TINKER: asked the Prime Minister whether, when he introduces the Bill dealing with mining royalties, he will see that it contains provisions to compensate local authorities and others who have suffered damage through displacement of the surface caused by the removal of underground strata?

Captain CROOKSHANK: I have been asked to reply. I cannot anticipate the terms of the Bill, but generally its object will be to unify the ownership of mineral

rights in coal and not to alter the existing law relating to support.

Mr. TINKER: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman tell the House when the Bill is likely to be introduced? Will it be this Session?

Captain CROOKSHANK: I am afraid that I cannot make any statement about that matter.

BOYS.

Mr. JENKINS: asked the Secretary for Mines the age at which boys are permitted to work in the mines of France, Germany, Holland and Russia, and the maximum hours they are permitted to work each day?

Captain CROOKSHANK: With the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement giving this information as far as it is available.

Following is the statement:

The following particulars are taken from the Report entitled "Children and Young Persons under Labour Law," published by the International Labour Office in 1935.

State and Employments covered.
Admission Ages.


France.


"Boys employed in subterranean galleries of mine."
18 years.


"Employment as miner, except as apprentice."
16 years.


Germany.


…" mines, pits" …
14 years.*


"Boys employed underground in Ruhr anthracite mines."
16 years.


"Hewers in anthracite mine"
21 years.


Holland.


"Boys employed belowground"
16 years.


"Boys employed as signalman or hewer."
21 years.


"Boys employed as shaft repairer or in temperature exceeding 30°C."
20 years.


U.S.S.R.


"Underground work"
18 years.


*"If compulsory school attendance completed "— 13 years.

The permissible hours of work for adults in coal mines in the principal producing countries of Europe are approximately eight per day, bank to bank. Information is not available as to the extent to which a lower maximum may be applied in the case of boys.

Mr. R. J. TAYLOR: asked the Secretary for Mines the number of boys between 14 and 15 years of age and between 15 and 16 years of age who were injured fatally and non-fatally in first shift and second shift, respectively, in the counties of Durham and Northumberland during the years 1933, 1934 and 1935?

Captain CROOKSHANK: I regret it is not possible to divide the accidents satisfactorily between the different shifts worked, but, with the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate the available figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. TAYLOR: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that, when an accident occurs, the time of the accident is duly recorded? If that be so, where is the impracticability of separating these shifts for the purpose of giving the information for which I ask? Is the hon. and gallant

Number of boys of 14 and 15 years of age, respectively, killed and injured (disabled for more than three days) at mines in Northumberland and Durham during the years 1933–35.


Year.
14 years of age.
15 years of age.


Killed.
Injured (disabled for more than three days).
Killed.
Injured (disabled for more than three days)







Northumberland.


1933
…
…
…
…
—
146
1
206


1934
…
…
…
…
1
264
—
249


1935
…
…
…
…
—
227
3
312







Durham.


1933
…
…
…
…
2
356
3
614


1934
…
…
…
…
2
530
1
760


1935
…
…
…
…
1
479
7
1,008

Oral Answers to Questions — IRISH FREE STATE.

Mr. LUNN: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether any action is being taken to secure an agreement between this country and the Irish Free State on all outstanding differences?

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): I am not in a position to make any further statement on this subject.

Mr. LUNN: In view of the urgency that an agreement should be come to on these outstanding questions between this country and the Irish Free State, when can we expect a definite statement from the right hon. Gentleman?

Gentleman aware that the reason for my question is that these children are in the pits at one and two o'clock in the morning, which is why they are being injured?

Captain CROOKSHANK: I am aware that the time is recorded, but that is not quite the whole question. A certain amount of overlapping takes place, and that is the cause of the difficulty of getting out figures for any particular time.

Mr. G. GRIFFITHS: Does not the Minister's reference to overlapping suggest that these people are working overtime, and that that is the reason why there are so many accidents?

Captain CROOKSHANK: No, Sir.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: It sounds like it.

Following are the figures:

Mr. MacDONALD: If I could make any statement, I would gladly do so, but I am afraid I cannot make any promise.

Mr. LOGAN: Has the right hon. Gentleman any intention whatever of making any overtures to the Irish Free State? [An HON. MEMBER: "Why should he?"] For the sake of this House and the Irish people.

Mr. MacDONALD: I would refer the hon. Member to the answers I have given on previous occasions.

Oral Answers to Questions — NEWFOUNDLAND.

Mr. LUNN: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs the number of


unemployed in Newfoundland, the number receiving relief, and comparable figures for 1934 and 1935?

Mr. M. MacDONALD: Figures of unemployed, as apart from those receiving relief, are not available. The total number of persons, including women and children, on relief in March (which is the latest month for which full figures are available) was 76,629 compared with 71,897 in March, 1935, and 85,215 in March, 1934. Naturally, unemployment is at its highest at this period of the year, and the figures may be expected to show a substantial decrease when the fishing season opens this month.

Mr. LUNN: Can we expect anything to be done by the Commission of Government to reduce these figures, or is the Commission of Government powerless in the matter?

Mr. MacDONALD: If the hon. Gentleman will read the last report issued by the Commission, he will see that they are endeavouring to do a great deal in this matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALBERTA (DEBT).

Mr. LYONS: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he can make any statement with reference to the financial indebtedness of Alberta; whether all liabilities have been met; whether any and what additional charge has been made on Dominion funds; and whether any increased financial benefits have been issued in the province?

Mr. M. MacDONALD: My hon. and learned Friend will remember that a Province of Alberta debt of $3,200,000, which matured on 1st April last, was not met on that date. I understand that on 27th May a statement was made by the Provincial Treasurer regarding a reduction of interest, as from 1st June, on the public debt of the Province. I have not yet received the text of that statement, but will send my hon. and learned Friend a copy of it as soon as it is available. I understand that the Provincial Government have subsequently indicated that they are to discuss the situation with a committee representing the holders of Alberta Bonds, which is now being formed. This committee will include representatives of Canadian, United

Kingdom and United States holders of these bonds. As regards the last two parts of the question, I am making further inquiries.

Oral Answers to Questions — COTTON SPINNING INDUSTRY BILL.

Mr. SUTCLIFFE: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can now state the names of those who have been nominated as members of the Spindles Board and of the advisory committee, under the Cotton Spinning Industry (Redundant Spindles) Bill?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): As announced in the Press last week, the chairman of the Spindles Board is Mr. John Taylor, and the other two members are Mr. R. Houghton and Mr. A. H. Lord. I am not yet in a position to state the names of the members of the advisory committee.

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether a decision has yet been reached as to the appointed day upon which the provisions of the Cotton Spinning Industry Bill will be brought into operation; whether he will consider the desirability of postponing the appointed day until he has ascertained what is the present excess of spindleage in the industry; and whether the scheme, as amended by Parliament, is required by a sufficient majority of the industry?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The answer to the first and second parts of the question is in the negative. As regards the third part, I see no reason for a further ballot of the industry on this matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — MOTOR TRAWLER "GIRL PAT."

Mr. DAY: asked the President of the Board of Trade what representations have been made by the owners of the British, motor trawler "Girl Pat" asking his Department to assist them in locating this vessel; whether his assistance has been asked for by the owners to aid them in the detention of this vessel at any foreign port at which she may call; and whether he will give particulars?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: No such representations have been made to the Board of Trade, nor has their assistance been asked for. I understand that, at the request


of the solicitors representing the underwriters, instructions have been sent by the Foreign Office to some of His Majesty's representatives abroad, with a view to ensuring that any legitimate steps possible will be taken by the local authorities at ports which the ship may visit to secure her detention and to prevent her obtaining goods on credit.

Mr. DAY: Is there any information as to whether the name of the ship has been changed while she has been at sea?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have no more information than I have given to the House this afternoon.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

TINPLATE INDUSTRY.

Mr. JAMES GRIFFITHS: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that Messrs. Richard Thomas and Company, Limited, of Swansea, intend to proceed with their plans to erect a new strip mill at Irthlingborough, which is causing grave, concern as to the future prospects of the tinplate industry in Llanelly and district, which provides employment for many thousands of workmen; and what steps he proposes to take to prevent this company from destroying the economic life of a large community?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have seen reports in the Press regarding the programme of future development said to be under consideration by the company to which the hon. Member refers. I do not gather from those reports that that programme is calculated to have the effect suggested in the latter part of the question.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that all the chambers of commerce and all the councils in the area believe that it will have a very bad effect, and has he not received representations of that kind?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am quite well aware that the moving of an industry or a portion of an industry from one district to another may have some detrimental effects, but I had pleasure in reading in the speech referred to in the question that the speaker said that the existing works in South Wales would remain in operation for many years.

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: In view of the variations in the speech of this gentleman, would not the right hon. Gentleman suggest that some understanding should be arrived at so that apprehensions may be brought immediately to an end?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have had representations from time to time, and I am keeping in close touch.

ITALIAN GOODS (IMPORTATION).

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: asked the President of the Board of Trade on what grounds he has declined to permit the re-importation by Messrs. Robert Farnworth, Limited, of Bolton, of a quantity of artificial silk yarn sent to Italy for special processing before sanctions had come into operation?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The only dispensing power possessed by the Board of Trade in respect of the prohibition of importation of Italian goods is that conferred by Article 1 of the Treaty of Peace (Covenant of the League of Nations) No. 2 Order, 1935. This Article provides that the Board of Trade may authorise by licence the importation of any goods consigned from or grown, produced or manufactured in Italian territory if they are satisfied that the price of the goods was wholly paid on or before 10th October, 1935. In the case referred to by my hon. Friend, a payment to a concern in Italy is outstanding in respect of the processing carried out there and there are, therefore, no grounds on which a Board of Trade licence to import the goods could be issued.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman give a permit to allow them to import a quantity of goods equal to the value of the goods which they themselves sent? Is not this a sanction against Bolton and not against Italy?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: If a suggestion of that kind is put forward, I shall be pleased to examine it.

ITALY (YUGOSLAVIA AND UNITED KINGDOM TRADE).

Mr. EMMOTT: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will give comparative figures showing the total trade with Italy of Yugoslavia and the United Kingdom, respectively, during the first quarter of 1935 and of 1936?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: As the answer involves a tabular statement, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:


—
Trade in first quarter of


1935.
1936.



'000
'000


Yugoslavia:
Dinars.
Dinars.


Imports from Italy
115,000
180


Exports to Italy
171,000
17,491


United Kingdom:
£'000
£'000


Imports from Italy
2,028
59


Exports to Italy:


United Kingdom produce and manufactures.
2,379
108


Imported merchandise
474
110

Note. — Approximate average rates of exchange were 213 and 216·5 dinars to the £ in January to March, 1935, and January to March, 1936, respectively.

Mr. CARTLAND: asked the President of the Board of Trade what has been the value up to date to Yugoslavia of the tariff concessions granted to her imports into the United Kingdom as compensation for the losses which she incurred as the result of the imposition of sanctions against Italy?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The tariff concessions in question related to dead poultry (turkeys and fowls) and eggs in shell; in addition, certain increased imports of bacon were permitted. It is not possible to frame any exact estimate of the value of these concessions to Yugoslavia, but in the period January to April, 1936, inclusive, the imports of eggs in shell and bacon from Yugoslavia were higher by slightly over £30,000 as compared with the corresponding period of 1935, while the imports of dead poultry were less by some £33,000.

Viscountess ASTOR: Is it not true that friendly relations, even business relations, with Yugoslavia are very important to this country at present?

SANCTIONS (COMPENSATION).

Mr. SANDYS: asked the President of the Board of Trade on what grounds His Majesty's Government are giving compensation to Yugoslavia for losses suffered as a result of the imposition of

sanctions against Italy, and at the same time are refusing to give compensation to British subjects who have suffered similar losses?

Mr. DONNER: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the refusal of His Majesty's Government to pay compensation to British subjects for losses incurred as a result of the application of sanctions against Italy is on the grounds of principle or due to administrative difficulties?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The decision of His Majesty's Government that compensation cannot be granted for losses attributable to the sanctions imposed on Italy, was reached on grounds of principle. The provision of compensation for losses sustained as the result of sanctions would involve making similar provision from public funds for losses of trade or employment due to other causes. The grant of special facilities in the United Kingdom market for the import of limited quantities of certain Yugoslav produce, rests on different considerations as explained in the reply given to questions by my hon. and gallant Friends the Members for Newbury (Brigadier-General Clifton Brown) and Tiverton (Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte) on 10th February last.

Mr. SANDYS: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that this differentiation to the detriment of British subjects is equitable?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am afraid I could not accept the hon. Member's description of the matter.

CORONATION GOODS (CANADA).

Sir PATRICK HANNON: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that samples of Coronation goods are being received by agents for such goods in Canada; and whether he will approach the Canadian Government with a view to negotiating a temporary increase in duty on such foreign articles, in order that British manufacturers may have a fair opportunity of supplying the Canadian market?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I would remind my hon. Friend that United Kingdom manufacturers of these goods in general already enjoy tariff preferences in Canada.

OTTAWA AGREEMENTS.

Sir P. HANNON: asked the President of the Board of Trade what extra tonnage of cargo was carried between 1932 and 1936 by British ships as a result of the increase in outward and inward cargoes between the United Kingdom and those countries with which Ottawa Agreements were concluded; what proportion of this increased tonnage is represented by imports from the Dominions; and what approximately is the total freight value of such increase to British shipping?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I regret that the desired information is not available.

Mr. SHINWELL: Are we to understand that the right hon. Gentleman is unable to say whether any advantage has accrued to British shipping from the Ottawa Agreements?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: No. That would be a very foolish deduction.

Mr. SHINWELL: If that is a foolish deduction, would the right hon. Gentleman give us the right deduction?

INDIAN TARIFF BOARD (REPORT).

Sir JOSEPH NALL: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India when the report of the Indian Tariff Board will be published; and what action the Government of India is taking in relation thereto?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Butler): I am informed that the Government of India will shortly be in a position to announce their decisions on the report of the Indian Tariff Board.

AIRCRAFT (EXPORTS).

Mr. GARRO JONES: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many aircraft were exported under licence in the years 1934, 1935, and in the first four months of 1936?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Under the open general licence of the Board of Trade 298 complete aeroplanes were exported during 1934, 453 during 1935, and 133 during the first four months of 1936.

Oral Answers to Questions — AFFORESTATION.

SPECIAL AREAS (RELIEF).

Mr. SEXTON: asked the hon. And gallant Member for Rye, as representing the Forestry' Commissioners, how many acres of land have been finally secured, and the situation of such land, under the scheme of forestry for alleviating unemployment in the Special Areas?

Colonel Sir GEORGE COURTHOPE (Forestry Commissioner): None has yet been finally secured.

Mr. SEXTON: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that there are thousands of men in the Special Areas waiting for this scheme to be started?

Sir G. COURTHOPE: It would be quite impossible to do any afforestation until November, even if there were hundreds of acres.

ROE DEER.

Mr. LEWIS: asked the hon. And gallant Member for Rye, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, how many roe deer have been killed by direction of the Forestry Commission since that Commission started operations?

Sir G. COURTHOPE: Records of roe deer killed by direction of the Forestry Commission prior to 1933 have not been kept. In each of the last three years approximately 390 have been killed.

Mr. LEWIS: Are we to understand that it is the policy of the Commissioners to exterminate these deer in the woods over which they have control?

Sir G. COURTHOPE: Certainly not. Roe deer are increasing rapidly and steadily.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

WORKING HOURS.

Mr. T. SMITH: asked the Minister of Labour whether he has any further information to give the House regarding his discussions with employers of labour on the question of a reduction of working hours?

Mr. LYONS: asked the Minister of Labour whether he can make any further statement upon the outcome of his conversations with industrial representatives


with reference to a shorter working week in industry, and the date of the most recent discussion?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead): No further meetings have taken place since those referred to in the reply given to the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) on 21st May. As a result, however, of my right hon. Friend's meeting with representatives of the distributive trade the organisations agreed to appoint representatives with whom the Department could consult for the further examination of the position with regard to wages, hours and working conditions in those trades, and communications have been received from other organisations who wish to be associated with these discussions. As pointed out in the previous reply, the principal effect of the discussions has been to cause closer attention to be given to the question relating to absorption of more workpeople into employment, but my right hon. Friend proposes to have a report prepared on the discussions for the information of those interested.

Sir P. HARRIS: Has the hon. and gallant Gentleman's attention been called to the reduction of hours in France, which will materially affect any negotiations with regard to industrial hours?

Mr. LYONS: When is it expected that the report will be made public?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: My right hon. Friend wishes to present the report as soon as he reasonably can.

Mr. T. SMITH: Will it be this Session?

JUVENILES.

Mr. GEORGE HALL: asked the Minister of Labour whether the National Advisory Council for Juvenile Employment have reviewed the system of authorised courses and the question of providing meals in the various centres; and, if so, will he state the result of their deliberations?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: My right hon. Friend has lately asked the National Advisory Council for Juvenile Employment to review the system of authorised courses. It is anticipated that the Council will include in their deliberations the question of the provision of meals in Junior Instruction Centres.

Mr. HALL: Is it possible to expedite these inquiries, as no less than 77 per cent. of the boys attending these junior instruction centres are certified to be suffering from malnutrition?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: I do not think it is ever the desire that an inquiry on such a subject should take longer than is necessary, and I am sure that is the case here.

Mr. HALL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the matter has been before the Department for 12 months, and nothing has been done?

INSURANCE (NON-MANUAL WORKERS).

Mr. LATHAN: asked the Minister of Labour whether any decision has been reached to introduce legislation at an early date to give effect to the recommendations of the Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee for the insurance of non-manual workers?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: No, Sir.

Mr. LATHAN: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that continued delay on the part of the Government is causing the most serious disappointment to hundreds of thousands of people for whom no provision whatever has been made, and does he recall that there was something in the nature of a promise in the manifesto of the Government at the last Election?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: My answer simply indicated that no decision had yet been reached about legislation.

Viscountess ASTOR: Would it not be a good thing to put a woman on that council?

ASSISTANCE REGULATIONS.

Mr. ALBERY: asked the Minister of Labour whether he can now make a statement concerning the new regulations for the administration of unemployment assistance?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: There is nothing to add to the statement which my right hon. Friend made on this matter in the Debate on the Adjournment before the Recess.

Mr. ALBERY: Is the Minister of Labour bearing in mind the fact that many of the supporters of the Government at the General Election stated that certain aspects of the means test having


a bearing on family life would receive early attention?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: I think that the Minister is bearing very closely in mind all the Election statements made by the Government.

Sir P. HARRIS: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the Minister promised to produce his Regulations after Easter, that Easter has long since passed, and that it is now nearly midsummer?

IRISH FREE STATE (IMMIGRANTS).

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been called to the great increase in the number of immigrants into Great Britain from the Irish Free State; whether he is aware that approximately 57,000 persons have emigrated from the Free State to the United Kingdom from 30th March, 1932, to 30th March, 1936; and whether he can make a statement to the House as to the effect of this immigration on employment in Great Britain?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: The number of immigrants into Great Britain from the Irish Free State is not recorded, but such information as is available indicates that the figure mentioned is an overestimate. That figure roughly corresponds to the net movement of passengers between Great Britain and the Irish Free State, but it would be unsafe to conclude that this represents the number of persons remaining in Great Britain. So far as the effect of this immigration on employment in this country is concerned I would remind my hon. Friend that the number of insured persons in employment increased by 1,113,000 during the period to which he refers.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that, at any rate, there are very large numbers of workers coming from the Irish Free State to this country and taking jobs which would otherwise be available for English and Scottish workers, while, at the same time, English and Scottish workers in the Free State are precluded from taking employment; and does he not think that there should be some reciprocity in this matter?

Viscountess ASTOR: Is it not true that it is almost a scandal the way Irishmen are pouring into Liverpool, and yet we cannot obtain any answer as to how many are coming in and getting permanent jobs in this country?

Mr. LOGAN: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman also consider the advisability of workers from Northern Ireland not being allowed into England?

Viscountess ASTOR: They are different.

Oral Answers to Questions — COST-OF-LIVING INDEX.

Mr. G. HALL: asked the Minister of Labour if the proposed committee has been set up to inquire into the methods to be adopted in the collection of information for revising the basis of the index figure; and, if so, will he state the personnel?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 28th May to my hon. Friend the Member for East Fulham (Mr. Astor) of which I am sending him a copy.

Oral Answers to Questions — FINANCE BILL

Mr. ALBERY: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make available to Members an explanatory pamphlet dealing with the complicated legal Clauses which will have to be discussed on the committee stage of the Finance Bill, especially those including legislation by reference?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): I am afraid I cannot see my way to adopt my hon. Friend's suggestion, and I would refer him to the reply I gave on 19th May to a similar question by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis).

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE.

OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Mr. KELLY: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the total annual cost of a scheme of old age pensions for all employed persons with an income of less than £500 a year to operate at 60 years of age at the rate of £1 per week for the recipient and £1 per week for the recipient's wife?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member will realise that calculations of this sort, of which there may be innumerable variants, involve very considerable labour. He will find very full information on the subject in the speech of the then Financial Secretary on 21st February, 1934, and perhaps he will be good enough to consider whether the figures there given, showing a net cost of £207,000,000 a year for a scheme on the general lines of that suggested in his question though with rather different assumptions, do not really give him in general the information he requires.

INCOME TAX (EDUCATIONAL TRUSTS).

Mr. LEWIS: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider whether a refund of Stamp Duty might be permitted upon the revocation of those educational trusts the income under which it is now proposed should be aggregated with the parent's income for the purpose of Income Tax?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir; I fear I cannot accept this suggestion.

MALE SERVANT LICENCE DUTY.

Major STOURTON: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many licences for male servants were issued for the year ended March, 1936; the total sum thus obtained, the approximate cost of collection, and the number of county and county borough councils engaged in collecting this tax?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The latest particulars of the Male Servant Licence Duty at present available are those for the year ended 31st March, 1935, and in that year the number of licences issued was 174,248 and the amount of duty paid £130,670. I have no information as to the approximate cost of collection of the duty. The number of county and county borough councils concerned is 146.

Mr. BENSON: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury (1) what total weekly contribution would be necessary to allow an increase in the old age pensions of married couples to 30s. at 65 years of age and at 60 years of age, respectively;
(2) what total weekly contribution would be necessary to reduce the old age pension age to 60, and to pay pensions of 15s. per week or of £1 per week, respectively;
(3) what total weekly contribution would be necessary to pay an invalidity pension of £1 per week to males and to females, respectively, on retirement by reason of invalidity prior to pensionable age?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. W. S. Morrison): I am afraid that it would be a formidable task to work out the addition to contributions which would be necessary to cover ultimately each of the six specified extensions of the benefits of the social insurance schemes which are involved (including alternatives) in the hon. Member's questions. Moreover, if—as I assume to be the intention—such extensions were to be brought into immediate operation, a charge would have to be imposed on the Exchequer (additional to any share which it bore of the contributions) until the time, many years ahead, when the pension list consisted entirely of persons who had contributed on the extended basis since their entrance into industry. Each of the hon. Member's suggestions involves such heavy cost as to render it impracticable, and in the circumstances I do not feel justified in incurring the expense necessary to the Calculation of the contributions.

Oral Answers to Questions — CUSTOMS DUTIES (CONFISCATED ARTICLES).

Mr. DAY: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury which of the articles seized or confiscated by the Customs authorities it is the practice of his Department to hand over to other Government Departments; and whether any payment is made for such articles towards the Customs Duty outstanding; and will he give particulars?

Mr. W. S. MORRISON: Unless their importation is prohibited, goods seized or confiscated by the Customs are normally sold at a duty-paid price and the proceeds carried to the Crown's account. But tobacco fit for smoking is sent free of charge to the criminal lunatic asylums for consumption by the inmates, and tobacco unfit for human consumption is sent to the Royal Botanic Gardens for fumigating purposes. As a special exception, a recent importation of matches, which would otherwise have had to be destroyed because the boxes were not properly marked, was


handed over to the Office of Works for use in Government Departments, on payment of the duty involved.

Mr. DAY: Can the hon. and learned Gentleman say what that payment was, and whether it was cheaper than buying?

Mr. MORRISON: Not without notice, but I can assure the hon. Member that it was the amount of the duty involved.

Mr. THORNE: Can the hon. and learned Gentleman say whether the sale of the undergarments was advertised?

Mr. MORRISON: I should like notice of that question.

Mr. MAXTON: Is it the duty of the Financial Secretary to decide when tobacco is fit or not fit for human consumption?

Mr. MORRISON: No, Sir; these matters are generally dealt with Depart-mentally, and I have not yet been asked for a Ministerial decision on the subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — RABBITS (DAMAGE).

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether it is proposed to set up a committee to inquire into the destruction caused by rabbits?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Elliot): Yes, Sir. As indicated in the reply given on 19th May to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Cook), it is proposed to appoint a Select Committee in another place to inquire into this matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — RIVER POLLUTION.

BEET SUGAR FACTORIES.

Mr. SHORT: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will state the beet-sugar factories which have installed a plant to prevent pollution, of rivers?

Mr. ELLIOT: I understand that practically all the beet-sugar factories have some form of plant for the purification of effluent with a view to the prevention of pollution. If the hon. Member desires further information in regard to particular factories and will let me know, I will do my best to supply it.

RIVER IRWELL.

Sir J. NALL: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the increasing pollution of the River Irwell and the consequent menace to health; and what steps are being taken to insist upon adequate treatment of sewage effluent discharged into the river?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): My inquiries do not suggest that the pollution of this river is increasing. The supervision of the discharges into the river is vested in the Mersey and Irwell Joint Committee, and I have no reason to suppose that their duties are not being satisfactorily performed. If my hon. Friend has any information on the matter, I shall be glad if he will let me have it.

Mr. TINKER: Will the right hon. Gentleman pay a visit to the River Irwell and see the position for himself?

Sir J. NALL: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries as to the source of the information that he has given in his answer, because it is quite contrary to the facts?

Sir K. WOOD: I am aware of the source of my own information. If the hon. Member has any information, I would ask him to send it to me.

Oral Answers to Questions — TELEPHONE SERVICE (LONDON-LEICESTER).

Mr. LYONS: asked the Postmaster-General the number of telephone lines now in operation between Leicester and London and the date of the last increase?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir Walter Womersley): There are now 27 direct telephone lines between Leicester and London. This represents an increase of eight lines since October, 1934, the most recent addition having been made this month. A further increase of four lines will be made very shortly.

Mr. LYONS: Can my hon. Friend say approximately when it may be expected that the further increase will have been made?

Sir W. WOMERSLEY: We are getting on with the work as quickly as possible, and I can assure my hon. and learned


Friend that, when these additional lines are provided, adequate provision will be made for all messages between Leicester and London.

Oral Answers to Questions — FIRE PRECAUTIONS (PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND SCHOOLS).

Mr. KELLY: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has considered the methods of dealing with the means of escape from fire in public buildings?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Simon): Yes, Sir. In 1934 the Home Office issued a manual indicating, for the guidance of local authorities, the measures which are required for the safety of the public in theatres and other places of public entertainment. Many of the suggestions made in the manual are applicable to other buildings to which the public are admitted.

Mr. KELLY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether that manual has been revised during recent months, as it is reported that many of the suggestions therein contained do not fit the position found to exist in some of the public buildings?

Sir J. SIMON: I think that there has been a revision, but I will send the hon. Member a copy of the latest provisions.

Mr. KELLY: asked the Home Secretary whether he will furnish the House with the details of the recommendations of the committee of experts appointed by the Home Office to consider the question of protection from fire in public and private schools?

Sir J. SIMON: No committee on this subject has been appointed. Last year the Home Office issued a handbook on fire precautions in schools which was prepared by the fire adviser to the Home Office.

Mr. KELLY: Is the Home Office giving consideration to the advice of these experts with regard to the difficulties and dangers in connection with many of the private schools?

Sir J. SIMON: I should like to have notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — ITALY AND ABYSSINIA.

Mr. PALING: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether lie has any information to give the House with regard to the present position of affairs in Abyssinia?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Viscount Cranborne): His Majesty's Government have no information that, since the capture of Addis Ababa on 5th May and of Harar and Diredawa shortly afterwards, there has been any great extension of the area occupied by the Italian forces during the concluding stages of the campaign. Reports from Western Abyssinia indicate the existence of considerable unrest and general insecurity, a feature of the latter being the hostility between the Galla and Amhara elements in the population. Having regard to the possibility of disorder in this part of the country, His Majesty's Consulates at Mega and Maji have been temporarily closed in view of the impossibility of ensuring the safety of their staffs.

Oral Answers to Questions — DARDANELLES.

Mr. PALING: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information to give the House regarding the fortification of the Dardanelles?

Viscount CRANBORNE: His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom have accepted an invitation from the Turkish Government to take part in a conference to be held at Montreux to discuss the revision of the Straits Convention of Lausanne.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA AND JAPAN.

Mr. GRENFELL: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information to give the House as to the position of affairs in the Far East?

Viscount CRANBORNE: Signs of tension have recently appeared in the relations of the South Western Provinces of China with the Central Government, but there seems no sufficient reason at present to take an alarmist view of the situation. As regards the question of smuggling in North China, conversations have continued between His Majesty's


representatives in Japan and China and the Governments to which they are accredited. The Japanese Government have despatched an official of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to examine the situation on the spot. I understand that the Japanese garrison in North China is being reinforced, but I am unable to give actual figures. In other respects the situation has not materially altered since the reply given to a similar question put by the hon. Member on 21st April last.

Mr. GRENFELL: Can the Noble Lord say whether the Japanese Government has given any assurance that the additional troops are intended only to defend her possessions?

Viscount CRANBORNE: I understand that under the International Boxer Protocol of 1901 the Japanese and other signatories acquired the right to station garrisons in the North of China, and that the Protocol does not impose any limits on the size of the garrison. They are, therefore, entitled to send troops if they wish.

Mr. GRENFELL: Does the Japanese Government give any assurance that the movement of troops is designed only to give effect to the Protocol?

Viscount CRANBORNE: I should like notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNATIONAL SITUATION.

Mr. GRENFELL: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information to give the House on the international situation?

Viscount CRANBORNE: At the request of the Argentine Government a meeting of the sixteenth Assembly of the League of Nations will be held at Geneva on 30th June. I understand that it is the view of the Argentine Government that the Assembly should meet to examine the situation brought about by the annexation of Ethiopia and also the situation in regard to sanctions. I have dealt with other aspects of the international situation in reply to previous questions to-day.

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: Can the Noble Lord give the House any indication as to the line of policy which is to be adopted by His Majesty's Government at the meeting of the assembly?

Viscount CRANBORNE: Not to-day.

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: Can the Noble Lord say whether it is the policy supported by the First Lord of the Admiralty?

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

Major STOURTON: asked the Minister of Health how many houses, for sale and to let, have been erected since the formation of the National Government, and in each case how many are suitable for occupation by working-class families; and whether he can give the corresponding figures for houses at present under construction?

Sir K. WOOD: I hope shortly to be able to publish the half-yearly return giving information up to 31st March, and I will send my hon. and gallant Friend a copy.

Oral Answers to Questions — BURNING PIT HEAPS.

Mr. DAVID ADAMS: asked the Minister of Health whether, in the forth coming new Health Bill, he proposes to make obligatory upon all local authorities concerned the duty of removing the menace to health of burning pit heaps?

Sir K. WOOD: No, Sir. Action of this kind would be outside the scope of a Consolidation Bill.

Mr. ADAMS: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman what methods the local authorities have in order to deal with this perennial and admitted menace to health and comfort?

Sir K. WOOD: That is another question.

Mr. TINKER: Has the right hon. Gentleman no intention to do anything to help to remedy this nuisance?

Sir K. WOOD: The hon. Member must not assume that. The matter has been dealt with and debated in the House on several occasions.

Oral Answers to Questions — RATES AND AUDIT.

Sir WALDRON SMITHERS: asked the Minister of Health when he proposes to introduce his Bill for the reorganisation of the rating system; and will he bear in mind the advisability of increased


Parliamentary control and audit over the expenditure by local authorities of the taxpayers' money?

Sir K. WOOD: I have not in contemplation legislation of the character envisaged by my hon. Friend.

Sir W. SMITHERS: In view of the large Government grants which are given in certain areas, does the right hon. Gentleman not think that there should be extra power of control given in those areas? [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Maladministration.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE (SITUATION).

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any information to give the House as to the position of affairs in Palestine?

Mr. SHORT: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can make a statement respecting the position in Palestine?

Mr. WHITE: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can make a statement with regard to the present position in Palestine?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): I much regret to report that the improvement in the situation in Palestine referred to by the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs in the reply which he gave just before the Recess has not been maintained. The authorities are faced with a continuing series of acts of violence in many parts of the country. The Government of Palestine are taking all possible action to protect life and property, and further emergency powers under the Palestine Defence Order in Council, 1931, are being issued by proclamation. Since the House last met the troops in Palestine have been further reinforced.
May I take this opportunity, which is the first I have had since assuming office, to express my deep personal concern for the welfare of all sections of the population of Palestine, and my confidence that ultimately on the basis of the recommendations of the Royal Commission, which His Majesty will be advised to appoint when order is fully restored, means will be found, within the framework of the

Mandate with its dual obligations, to establish a more lasting peace and contentment among the various peoples of Palestine.

Mr. H. MORRISON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Government are aware who are the leaders of these disturbances, and, if so, is it not the duty of the Government to deal with those leaders?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the leaders say that this is a strike.

Mr. GALLACHER: Yes, and a justifiable strike.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: That is their view. It is true that the leaders who are suspected or against whom there is a prima facie case that they have been responsible for crimes or acts of violence, have been arrested and placed in a concentration camp in South Palestine.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the actual head of the Arab population in Palestine is regarded as being one of the leaders who are influencing the rioters?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I do not know to whom the hon. Member refers as the head of the Arab population. There is no such person recognised.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is not the Grand Mufti, who was appointed by Sir Herbert Samuel, regarded as the head of the Mohammedan population in Palestine, and is there any information of any kind which associates him with the present disturbances?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The office of Mufti in the Mussulman world is purely a religious office as head of the religious court dealing with matters of personal law and religious observance. He is in his personal capacity, if not hereditarily, head of the religious authority of the Mosque of Omar in Jerusalem. To describe him as having been appointed by Sir Herbert Samuel is really, I think, endeavouring to stress the point much too far, and it would be very unwise for the House to draw the conclusion that he is thereby a Government servant.

Earl WINTERTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the names of the gentlemen who are to constitute the Royal Commission will be published immediately, or is the whole proceeding to be held up until this lamentable state of affairs is at an end?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: My predecessor made it quite clear, as I do also, that His Majesty's Government have no intention of appointing a Royal Commission or of publishing any terms of reference until British administration has once more imposed law and order on the country; until law and order have been definitely restored and acts of violence brought to an end.

Mr. H. MORRISON: Is it not the case that the leaders of this so-called strike, which appears to be a political strike, include well-to-do men, some of them capitalists, who are not trade union leaders in any sense of the term?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: It is true that among those who are leading the movement are persons of all kinds.

Mr. GALLACHER: Would it not be more desirable from the point of view of the right hon. Gentleman to grant what is justice in the form of a Legislative Assembly, instead of trying to impose a military dictatorship?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I have made it perfectly clear that before these outbreaks of violence began the High Commissioner was in consultation with Arabs, Jews and British in regard to the formation of a Legislative Council, and that he offered to receive a deputation of Arab leaders here in London to discuss the matter.

Commander LOCKER - LAMPSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman do anything to stop Mussolini broadcasting in Arabic anti-British propaganda?

Oral Answers to Questions — EGYPT.

Mr. JAGGER (for Mr. RHYS DAVIES): asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information to give the House as to the position of affairs in Egypt?

Viscount CRANBORNE: As the hon. Member is aware, His Majesty's High Commissioner for Egypt and the Sudan

has returned to this country at the request of His Majesty's Government to consult with them on certain aspects of the treaty conversations which have been taking place between British and Egyptian Delegations in Cairo. These consultations are at present proceeding.

Oral Answers to Questions — DISARMAMENT CONFERENCE.

Mr. JAGGER (for Mr. RHYS DAVIES): asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the present position of the Disarmament Conference?

Viscount CRANBORNE: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell) on 4th February, to which I have nothing to add.

Oral Answers to Questions — BUDGET DISCLOSURE INQUIRY.

Mr. ATTLEE: asked the Home Secretary what action the Government propose to take with regard to the findings of the Budget Disclosure Inquiry.

Sir J. SIMON: The right hon. Gentleman before the Whitsun Recess asked the Government to make arrangements for an immediate Debate as soon as the report of the Tribunal was received. The Government are prepared, if desired, to set aside Thursday of this week for this purpose. As regards any other action, I am not able to give an answer to-day. The Minutes of Evidence taken before the Tribunal were only published at the end of last week, and it is right that the fullest consideration should be given to the whole matter. I am informed that the Blue Book is available to hon. Members to-day.

Mr. ATTLEE: May I ask whether on the occasion of the Debate on Thursday the Prime Minister will put down a Motion expressing the opinion of the House, or asking for an expression of opinion by the House on the findings of the Commission?

Sir J. SIMON: That is a matter for consideration, and I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman will put a question about it to-morrow.

Mr. ATTLEE: It is rather important that the House should know what course the Debate will take, and it is also im-


portant from the point of view of hon. Members who are implicated by the report. I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not possible for the Government to make up their mind on the matter and give a lead?

Sir J. SIMON: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman or the House has the smallest ground for complaint. I agree that it is a very serious matter, and it is quite right that it should be carefully considered before a decision is arrived at.

Viscountess ASTOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman find out whether it is the desire of the whole of the House that there should be a Debate on the subject?

Mr. BOOTHBY: May I ask whether it is possible for the Law Officers of the Crown to take whatever decision they may require to come to before the Debate on Thursday?

Sir J. SIMON: On that I would observe that this is a matter for the Attorney-General, not for the Law Officers of the Crown. Any question of criminal proceedings is solely a matter for the Attorney-General, and the Cabinet have no right, and no intention of influencing the Attorney-General in his decision in any way. If the Attorney-General is asked, if a question is put down, it may be possible to ascertain his views before the Debate on Thursday.

Mr. ATTLEE: It is important that we should know his decision before we have the Debate, otherwise it would be extremely difficult for the House to debate the matter.

Sir J. SIMON: I quite realise that.

Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: Would it not be better, if the Attorney-General cannot announce his decision within the next day or two, to postpone the Debate?

Mr. CHURCHILL: In the event of the Attorney-General advising in favour of a prosecution, would not a debate be impossible as dealing with a matter which would be sub judice? Is it not therefore essential, if the fullest consideration is to be given to the matter, that the House should be in possession of the Attorney-General's decision before attempting to discuss the matter?

Sir J. SIMON: I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I am only

concerned to secure, as I am sure the whole House will wish to secure, that the Attorney-General has proper time to consider the matter, and when a decision has been reached, of which the Government have no knowledge at all, the Attorney-General will make a statement in public. I agree that this must be ascertained before a Debate can take place.

Mr. ATTLEE: In view of the reply, I will repeat my question to-morrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

SCOTTISH STANDING COMMITTEE.

Sir Henry Cautley reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills (added in respect of the Weights and Measures (Scotland) Bill): Mr. Oscar Guest; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Boyce.

Report to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — FINANCE BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Increased customs duties on tea.)

3.49 p.m.

Mr. SANDYS: I beg to move, in page 2, line 4, to leave out "4d." and to insert "3¾d."
The basis for the Amendment is the principle of Imperial Preference. This principle has been seriously affected by the proposal to increase the duty on tea. The Chancellor of the Exchequer alleges that because the actual difference of duty between Empire and foreign tea has been maintained at the figure of 2d., therefore, the principle of Empire preference has been thoroughly safeguarded. I would like to urge, as has been urged in earlier stages of the consideration of the Budget proposals, that that principle, or at any rate the practice of it, has been very seriously affected. The measure of preference has been reduced from 50 to 33⅓ per cent., and, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer recognised during the earlier stages of the consideration of the Budget proposals, the effect of this may very well be to induce the public to transfer its purchases from dearer Empire teas to the less expensive Dutch East Indian teas. If that be the case—as the Chancellor admits it may very well prove to be—the Empire tea-growers and the whole principle of Empire Preference will be materially affected.
I know that my right hon. Friend would not be able at this stage to accept a reduction of the duty which would restore the full 50 per cent. of the preference owing to the heavy loss which would have to be incurred by the Treasury, but I ask him to give serious and sympathetic attention to this Amendment which would involve a reduction in the Empire Tea Duty of one farthing and would increase the preference from 33⅓ per cent. to something in the nature of 37 per cent. I am told this would give a considerably increased margin of preference and advantage to the Empire tea-grower. Finally, let me make it clear to my right hon. Friend that in moving

this Amendment we accept fully the principle that large increases in our Defences are absolutely necessary, and that responsibility for Empire and National Defence must be borne equitably by all sections of the community according to their ability to contribute.

3.53 p.m.

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: I do not know what may be the view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in regard to this. Amendment, but it seems to me that it would have little or no effect either one way or the other. As a matter of fact, these preference duties have not aided the planters in Ceylon or India at all. Their result has been to accentuate the competition of Dutch East Indian teas in the neutral markets to the detriment of the Ceylon planters, who have been spending money to open up those markets. Consequently, the effect has been to limit the re-export trade in tea from this country to South America and other parts of the world. The re-export trade in tea is a growing one. The Dutch teas formed the basis of the blends which were sent to the neutral markets, and the fact that they were available in this country for blending with Ceylon and Indian teas meant that they were able to carry the latter into oversea markets where otherwise they would not have gone. There are more varieties of tea than there are of almost any other product. In dealing with tea in connection with a Financial Resolution, one is apt to think of it as a single product, but it varies from plantation to plantation, and from district to district. The best thing that could possibly happen from the point of view of the planting industries in Ceylon and India would be to put their teas on an equal basis with all other teas, so that the experts who make up the blends could attempt to satisfy the public, who would have an opportunity of getting the best of all the teas available. That would be in the interests of the planting industry as a whole.

3.55 p.m.

Mr. CARTLAND: I would like to say a word or two in support of the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Sandys). It seems to me that the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White), if carried into effect, would practically do away with all preference,


and naturally hon. Members on this side could not agree with that point of view. The Amendment is a very small one, but it would have the effect of giving a slight advantage to the Empire producers of tea. The proposal put forward by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer seems to go rather against the previous assistance which has been given to the Empire producers of tea. The preference rate on coffee is 66 per cent., but many more people, particularly in the poorer homes, drink tea rather than coffee, and I feel that for that reason, if for no other, the preference rate on tea should be brought nearer to that on coffee, since coffee is more of a luxury drink than tea, which is almost a necessity in the poorer homes. I hope my right hon. Friend will consider this small Amendment in a sympathetic manner. We feel that it would make a little difference to the Empire producers of tea and not very much difference to the Chancellor's Budget. Therefore, on the grounds that the Amendment would assist the buyer of cheap tea and the Empire producer, and not make very much difference to the Chancellor's Budget, we hope he will accept it.

3.59 p.m.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): The views of hon. Members who have spoken are very different and they are actuated by very different motives. My hon. Friends who are responsible for the Amendment have put it forward, as I understand, in the interests of Empire production and with a view to increasing the preference to Empire producers to a higher percentage than that which is provided in my proposals. That attitude is very different from the one taken up by the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White), who evidently knows better what is good for the Empire producers than do the Empire producers themselves, and who thinks the best plan would be to put everybody on the same level. The hon. Member will not expect me to express any great sympathy with that point of view. With regard to the views of my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment, my attitude is quite different. I am in sympathy with the general view of giving such preference to Empire producers as will enable them to have their good share in the expansion of trade that may take place.
But I am not sure that my hon. Friends have gone deeply enough into this matter to have arrived at what is really a sound conclusion. They may or may not be aware of the circumstances, but I may say to the Committee generally that Indian and Ceylon teas are particularly in competition with Dutch tea from the Dutch East Indies, and that although these three sources of production are no doubt in sharp competition with one another they nevertheless have this common interest, that none of them wants to see such cut-throat competition as will reduce the price of tea to an unprofitable level, and they have for some time had amicable arrangements among themselves for the regulation of production, with the view of maintaining the price at a reasonable level. I am officially informed that it would be entirely contrary to their desires to see the margin of preference widened beyond that which is embodied in my proposals, because the effect of it would be to injure the good relations which now exist between them and their Dutch competitors.
Therefore, although I am sure that my hon. Friend's Amendment is put forward with the best intention of helping Empire producers, I do not think it would help them if I accepted these proposals. The cost of it, although Small, would still be substantial. It would amount to nearly £500,000 a year. It is not on that ground particularly that I find myself unable to accept the Amendment, but on the ground that I have claimed, namely, that it would not really be in accordance with the desire of the Empire producers themselves, and that I do not think it would tend to improve their position in the long run.

Mr. SANDYS: In view of what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said, while I regret that he is unable to accept the Amendment, I beg to ask leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

4.5 p.m.

Mr. BARNES: I regret that a technicality prevented myself and my fellow-Members from moving an Amendment which is on the Paper in our names. Therefore, I desire to oppose the whole Clause in lieu of the discussion of that


Amendment. The opportunity that the Motion provides for voting against the whole of the Tea Duty is a much more desirable condition, from my point of view. I do not suppose that any duty, apart from Income Tax, has had the attention of this House more than the Tea Duty. In 1929 the House heaved a sigh of relief when it was felt that we had disposed altogether of discussion of the Tea Duty. It becomes increasingly difficult, as Budgets pass by, to find anything fresh to say on this particular subject, but because this is a matter which very vitally affects the whole of the population, it is impossible to allow to pass unchallenged a proposal by the Chancellor not only to continue this rather undesirable duty but to add to the burden of it.
I remember the occasion in 1929 when the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), in congratulating himself on the removal of this duty stated:
There is no other comfort which enters so largely into the budget of the cottage home, or the still humbler budgets of the old, the weak and the poor."—[OFFICIAL RETORT, 15th April, 1929; col. 63, Vol. 227.]
That was the right hon. Gentleman's justification for removing the duty altogether. I would call the Chancellor's attention particularly to another statement of the right hon. Member for Epping on that occasion. He explained to the House that the duty had been imposed in the time of Queen Elizabeth and he was rather gratified to feel that in the reign of King George the Fifth the duty would be permanently removed. I do not consider that any sentimental or social appeals of mine will in any way influence the Chancellor, and I do not doubt for one moment that he would describe the language of the right hon. Member for Epping as sob stuff, in stating that tea represented the luxury of the old and the weak and the poor. Apparently the Chancellor now is determined that although the reign of King George the Fifth marked the abolition of this duty, the reign of King Edward the Eighth will see it imposed in a more onerous form.
With regard to the question of Imperial Preference, I fail to see how the operation of the Imperial Preference Duty has substantially improved the importation of Empire teas on to the British market. It has varied from 84 per cent.

to 92 per cent., and even with the imposition of this preference over a period there has been a decline in the importations of Empire teas into the British market. One cannot see that the Empire preference represents any substantial improvement in the market position of Empire teas. The Chancellor told us that those in the tea trade have an arrangement between themselves and are anxious that that arrangment should not be jeopardised. That rather suggests that the intention is not so much to improve the position of the Empire importer on the British market, as to give the Empire importer a higher rate of profit on the tea that he puts on the British market. Figures were submitted during the Debates on the Budget Resolutions to prove that the imposition of a duty on tea works out at a higher percentage of increased burden on the poorer grade teas than on the higher grade teas. Therefore, in so far as tea is a universal beverage, that emphasises the point that to the extent to which the Chancellor increases the duty, it falls disproportionately on people with lower incomes who buy the cheaper grades of tea.
The Colwyn Committee 10 years ago emphasised the fact that the normal family with an income of £2 a week consumed on the average 39 lbs. of tea in a year. There is no indication that those figures of consumption have changed to any substantial degree since. It means that the Chancellor is imposing an additional tax of 6s. 6d. a year on the type of family referred to. Another aspect of the problem that we are entitled to emphasise is that the duty now is higher than at any period since 1923. The duty was re-imposed in 1932 as part of the emergency Budget impositions of that period, in order to deal with a special state of financial affairs. Since 1932 the majority of what may be described as the special hardship taxes then imposed under those abnormal conditions, have been removed. When the Tea Duty was introduced on that occasion, the excuse was that the special circumstances remained. The Chancellor has a responsibility not only to this House but to the country to explain how it is that, having imposed this duty again in 1932 after it had been removed from our system of taxation, he can justify the fact that while in the interim period the financial position has eased and other hardship taxes


have been removed or cuts eased, on this occasion he not only maintains the Tea Duty but extends it. I notice that the "Economist" in dealing with this particular matter said:
The burden of indirect taxation has already been disproportionate increased since 1931. This latest proposal is a grave infraction of the principle of equity, although the absolute burden of the tax is not very large.
I trust that if hon. Members will look the facts straight in the face, without any political prejudice, they will recognise that neither the financial condition of this country nor the type of tax we are considering justifies the Chancellor even in maintaining this Tea Duty, and certainly does not justify its increase.

4.13 p.m.

Mr. TINKER: I wish to support my hon. Friend in opposing the Clause. I am not as sanguine as he is in hoping that the House will support us in the Lobby, for I do not believe that hon. Members opposite will vote with us. The Chancellor will not give way. He has made up his mind to continue this tax, and it almost appears to most of us that it is hardly worth while making any protest whatever. In these Budget discussions I find that when the Chancellor has decided on a certain line of policy all the talking in the world has no effect upon him. The right hon. Gentleman has balanced his Budget. He wants to produce a certain amount of money and he is determined to have it. However on this occasion, seeing that this is a tax on one of the chief articles of food of the people, we would be unwise to allow the opportunity to pass without protest, even if our protest has no effect at all.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his first speech on the Budget, passed over this matter very lightly, and in his second speech on the subject he said he wanted every householder to be aware of the cost of the increased armaments. He wanted to see everyone paying a little bit towards that cost, and he took a sort of pride in that attitude. I can assure him that the people will bear in mind what he has done. Wherever I have been during the Recess, I have been challenged in every household about the Tea Duty. The people look upon a Member of Parliament, even though he may only be one of a small Opposition, as a person who has a voice in the control of affairs,

and he has to take his share of responsibility. It is no use for a Member to say to these people, "I have spoken about the matter but I have not altered the Chancellor's view." The people hold a Member of Parliament responsible in part for this taxation and when asked what defence I can make of this proposal, I have been compelled to say that I can offer no defence for it at all.
Even though I may agree that certain armaments are necessary, and that it is requisite that there should be taxation, yet I cannot defend the imposition of additional Tea Duty for that purpose. That is why I say that we ought to protest in every way we can against this Clause which places a burden on the very poor. We have recently put questions on the subject of increased pensions. This question of the Tea Duty has a bearing on that matter, because the parishioners for whom we have been pleading must have their tea just like rich people but the cost of the tea will be out of all proportion to their income if this addition is made to the duty. It means they will have to pay an additional ½d. on every quarter lb. of tea and on smaller quantities the addition will be even greater proportionately. This affects the poorest class of people most severely and I think the Chancellor ought to have regard to that fact. When he was seeking for means of finding increased revenue he ought to have had regard to direct taxation more than to indirect taxation. He could have got the £3,500,000 which he hopes to get by the imposition of this additional duty, much more easily and from a more appropriate source.
I take this opportunity, therefore, of protesting against Clause 1. I have been here long enough to know that a small Opposition can never expect to get anything from one whom I would describe as a hard-hearted Chancellor. I look upon the right hon. Gentleman as a very hard-hearted man. Indeed, he seems to take a pride in it. He seems to think that the Government require a strong man who will not play with the Opposition, but will tell them plainly what is to be done and the right hon. Gentleman certainly fills that role well, because when he says a thing we know that he is going to stand by it and that there will be no temporising. Therefore, I make this protest with no hope of success but


I hope that at the Election which I expect to happen before long—because the Government cannot continue to change Cabinet Ministers every day of the week without something of the kind happening—the people will bear in mind this increased Tea Duty and treat the Government as they ought to be treated, by sweeping them out of office.

4.20 p.m.

Mr. LEWIS: The argument used by the hon. Member for East Ham South (Mr. Barnes) really amounted to this, that if a demand for a luxury were sufficiently widespread, that luxury was not a suitable object of taxation. The argument has only to be stated in those simple terms to make its absurdity apparent. The hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) went even further and spoke about "the food of the people." That phrase may perhaps read better in the local paper than "stimulant of the people" but the latter would be a much more accurate description. For my own part, I cannot see that either hon. Member has put before the Committee any serious reason why tea should not be regarded as a suitable object to bear a share of the heavy burden of taxation which has to be borne in one form or another. Further than that, I think, having regard to the present costs of production and the supplies available, the present rate of taxation on tea is not unreasonable. This afternoon we are asked to agree to an increase in that rate of taxation. I think before we do that we ought to have placed before us clearly the necessity for such an increase. I am not prepared to say, if the Chancellor can show us that the money has to be found, that this is not a reasonable way of finding a portion of it but some of us who have considered very carefully the Chancellor's statement in introducing the Budget are driven to the conclusion that he is under-estimating the yield of some sources of revenue and that, in the event, at the end of the year, we shall find that to balance the Budget, as set out by him, the increase in the Tea Duty is not necessary.
The Committee will agree that if there is any substance in that suggestion it is a serious point, and one that ought to be met. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman now to assure us that in estimating the various sources of revenue for the

current year he has not deliberately provided for a surplus higher than that shown in the Budget statement. If he has done so, the argument for the increased taxation of tea or, for that matter, for increased Income Tax, falls to the ground. There may be this further consideration. The Chancellor may say, "I am, perhaps, a little excessive in caution, because next year we shall have very heavy burdens in respect of our armament programme, and it would be helpful to have a larger surplus than that indicated in the Budget statement, at the beginning of the year." If he proposed next year to meet all the costs of armaments out of revenue, I should have sympathy with that view, but he has already told us that he proposes to borrow for that purpose. I do not labour that point now because it is rather wide of the Clause which we are discussing, but I would ask the Chancellor, if he can, to give us a clear assurance that the estimates of yield which he put before us were no more than reasonably cautious, that he does not anticipate a greater surplus than that originally indicated and that, therefore, in order to balance the Budget the increased Tea Duty is necessary.

4.25 p.m.

Mr. WHITE: I find myself in complete agreement with the hon. Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Barnes), who said that it was exceedingly difficult at this stage to find anything new to say on the subject of the Tea Duty. It may not be devoid of interest at the moment, however, to recall statements made by myself and others in the earlier Debates, and see to what extent those statements have been borne out by the experience of the tea trade and the tea market since the Budget Resolutions came into effect. The hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis) suggested that the increased Tea Duty might not be necessary because the Chancellor would, possibly, receive a larger income from various sources than that for which he has budgeted. I have grave doubts as to whether the Chancellor will receive the full amount of income which he has budgeted to receive from the Tea Duty. It is true that since the Budget Resolutions came into force the effect on the wholesale market has been that the demand has fallen and that prices have given way somewhat.


That may be explained by the fact that when the Budget Resolutions were brought in the blenders and retailers did not immediately put up the price. Therefore, those who had in their pockets the money which would buy 2 lbs. or 3 lbs. of tea probably did so before the price went up. Those people are not now in the market and the effect of that may be finding its way over to the wholesale market.
I maintain, however, that the rise in the price consequent upon the imposition of the extra duty itself must inevitably have some effect upon demand, and that it is unlikely that the whole increase budgeted for by the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be received by him. The statement has been made that the object of the increased duty is to spread the burden over every household. Whatever else it may do, that is what it will not do. Owing to the mechanics of the tea market and the habits of the people that is one thing which is certain. Those who buy the cheapest quality of tea, say 1s. 8d., will inevitably pay every penny of the increased duty. There is no escape for them, because there is no margin to enable any concession to be made by the seller and the purchaser will pay the lot. When it comes to the case of the higher-rated tea, we have the ingrained and rather unfortunate habit of our people of buying tea, in the main, not by quality but by price. If a housewife has been in the habit of buying tea at a certain price whether 1s. 8d. or 2s. 4d. or whatever it may be, she continues to buy at that price.
What, has happened in this respect since the Budget Resolution came into effect? For the first week or two, there was no increase in the price at all. Then the blenders knowing that a demand would come for tea at a certain price, say 2s. 8d., did not take off the market the tea which had originally been 2s. 8d., add on the duty and call it 2s. 10d. tea. No, what they did was to keep a 2s. 8d. blend on the market and to have another blend at 2s. 10d. The housewife who is accustomed to buy tea at 2s. 8d. will continue to do so and will pay no more, but she will get a rather inferior blend and a rather less satisfactory quality of tea. What is actually happening across the counters of this country is that that habit or custom is being maintained. It

is not, perhaps, being entirely maintained because some people are paying the extra 2d. but the majority are not and therefore the contention which I made at the opening of these discussions is correct up to the present, that everybody will not in fact pay the increased burden of this tax.
The effect of it is to concentrate the demand for tea on the lower qualities and it is therefore a great disadvantage to these planters in Ceylon, India, and Assam who have been endeavouring by superior cultivation, by increased manuring of their estates, by better methods of picking and plucking the tea, to improve the quality of their product. The effect of this increased duty is very unfortunate on these people. It has already been to reduce the wholesale price of the better quality tea and to maintain the price of the cheaper qualities. Therefore, from the point of view of the consumer, the increase in the duty is unfortunate, and from the point of view of the Chancellor it is even more unfortunate. Later in this week we shall have to consider the finance of the Provincial Governments of India, which is based largely on agriculture, and anything which affects the general prosperity of the agricultural districts of India will be unfortunate. Whether the Chancellor will obtain the full amount of his revenue is a matter for speculation, but the prospects are, in my opinion, that his anticipation will not be realised.

4.31 p.m.

Mr. SANDYS: I think the argument put forward by the hon. Member for Birkenhead East (Mr. White) is somewhat inconsistent with his opposition to the Amendment which I moved. He now puts forward the claims of the planter in India, which surely it was the endeavour of a previous Amendment to protect.

Mr. WHITE: I did not oppose your Amendment.

Mr. SANDYS: I cannot go into that at the moment, but the hon. Member certainly appeared to be opposed to the principle of Empire Preference which underlay it. As regards the principle of taxing tea, which we are now discussing, I entirely support the Chancellor of the


Exchequer in his choice of tea for taxation. The hon. Member who has just sat down alleged that the taxation of tea would hit the consumer of the cheapest kinds of tea first and foremost, and that therefore it would be the poorest section of the community who would be the hardest hit. I think that is to some extent a fair and just argument, but surely the whole reason for introducing this increased Tea Duty is in order to reach the poorest section of the community, which is not always an easy thing to do. If they are affected to some extent more than certain other sections of the community, I ask hon. Members opposite to remember that those other sections of the community are bearing very considerable burdens for the purposes of defence, which is the main reason for the increase in taxation, and I think that any responsible citizen of this country would wish to feel that he had made his small contribution towards supplying the necessities for his own security. I will not follow the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis) into the question whether tea is a stimulant or whether it is a luxury, but I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer is fully justified in fixing on this particular commodity in order to place the burden of responsibility, in a just and equitable measure, upon all sections of the community in accordance with their ability to pay.

4.35 p.m.

Mr. BENSON: The hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Sandys) has followed the line of argument advanced by the Chancellor in his Budget speech, suggesting that he has chosen this particular duty in order that the very poor of the community might bear their share of the burden of increased armaments. He suggested that it is equitable that the very poor should bear their share. Quite frankly, we on this side are not prepared to accept that principle. I am prepared to admit as a general principle that everyone should bear taxation, but I will put this proviso, that taxation shall not be borne where the standard of living falls below what it ought to be and what it could be in a decently organised state of society. With all the wealth of this country, we have a population 50 per cent. of whom are living on a

standard which does not give them adequate food. Such was the result of the investigations of Sir John Orr. There is no excuse for that grinding poverty. If it exists, then the people who have to exist in that state of poverty ought not to be called upon to pay the taxation of the country, and it is for that reason that we shall oppose this Tea Duty now and whenever we get the opportunity, though we are quite prepared to admit that everybody should bear taxation if and when they are in a condition to bear it.

4.37 p.m.

Mr. BANFIELD: I daresay the Chancellor of the Exchequer is aware, though many hon. Members of the House are not, that in the course of the last year or two there has been a steady rise in the price of tea. The Chancellor alluded to an agreement between certain sections of the community, the effect of which has been a rise which altogether has amounted to round about 5d. per pound. There are great sections of the workers, such as old age pensioners and millions of wage earners, who do not get more than £2 a week, and I want the Committee to realise that these people buy cheap tea. It is impossible for them to buy tea any cheaper. The cheapest tea on the market is always the tea that they buy. Then the Chancellor comes along with another 2d. per pound on tea. It does not sound very much, but to poor people, to the man with a wife and four or five children and £2 a week, with 8s. or 9s. a week rent, it becomes a great burden. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Sandys) when he said that this tax is equitable and just. As a matter of fact, that is precisely the point on which we differ. People who can afford to pay 3s. or more per pound for their tea are not hit to any degree whatsoever by the mere fact that another 2d. is put on the pound of tea.

Mr. SANDYS: Surely what the hon. Member should be arguing is not against the principle of this taxation, which he admits is equitable in principle, but he should, on another occasion, urge measures to raise the standard of living of the nation, in which many hon. Members here would support him.

Mr. BANFIELD: That, of course, is one of those very nice expressions of


opinion which we hear from time to time from young Members on the Government benches, but I have yet to learn that they carry these opinions with them into the Division Lobby. In any case the hon. Member will have his chance when the new unemployment regulations come before this House in due course. The hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis) said he thought tea was a luxury. Well, I am not sure. What is he going to put in its place? What is he going to give people to drink? Pure cold water? Are they to have nothing but the water from the tap? People in poor circumstances particularly must have a stimulant of some kind, and to call it a luxury in these days seems to me to be a perfect misnomer.

Mr. LEWIS: How did these people manage before tea was introduced into this country?

Mr. BANFIELD: I understand they used to drink beer, but I am sure the hon. Member for Colchester would not care to go into his constituency, among low-wage earners and say, "All you can afford to drink, after all, is a cup of tea, but I think that is a luxury, and you ought to do without it." Whether we like it or not, and whichever way we look at it, tea has become practically a necessity for our people. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Hon. Members may disagree, but the facts are rather against them. I want to impress upon this Committee that this idea of spreading the burden, that the poor old-age pensioner must do a little towards the payment of the new battleships, that the responsibilities of Empire must fall upon her shoulders, is not applicable at all. The fact is that this particular tax on tea hits the poorest of the community, and hits them rather harder than any other form of taxation. It is useless for hon. Members to say that it is difficult to reach the poorest of the people by way of taxation. Indirect taxation falls upon them in all sorts of ways. As a matter of fact, I think it could be demonstrated that, according to income, the poorest people pay more in taxation than those who talk so glibly about the responsibilities of defence being placed upon their shoulders.
I feel on this matter very strongly, because I know something about the

conditions of the ordinary people, and by that I am not alluding to the better paid artisans, to the men with £4 a week, but I am alluding to those millions of people with an income of less than £2 a week when they are in full work, with the responsibilities of a family on their shoulders, men who are unable to afford holidays, decent people who struggle to keep themselves out of debt and to get their children enough to eat. Those are the people who suffer when the Chancellor puts 2d. extra on tea. While it may be said that taxation has got to be fair, and that it is all very well to put up a plea for these people, but it is merely sentiment, it is not sentiment; it is bitter reality to millions of these people up and down the country. I am pleased to think we shall vote against this duty. I am satisfied that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has no need whatever to put this 2d. on tea. I believe he could have balanced his Budget without doing anything of the kind, and that it is simply being put on so that he can get up and say, "I have seen to it that everybody in the nation, the poorest of the poor and those who are better off, are contributing towards the new armaments policy." That may be all right from the Chancellor's point of view, but it is a bit hard that millions of children, who, we now know, do not receive sufficient food, should have to contribute their mite through their parents and through this 2d. towards that burden. We should be better without a Tea Duty at all, but, if it is necessary, there is no need to increase it.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. DAVID ADAMS: It is the duty of Members on this side of the Committee to speak and vote on every opportunity against the Tea Duty. I look upon the increase of this tax as the crowning defect of the Budget, and I was greatly astonished when I found it embodied in the Budget of this Chancellor. The right hon. Gentleman is an old municipal representative and he must possess a municipal representative's conscience. We have heard a good deal to-day about the Chancellor being hard-hearted, but I question that, for no Chancellor who has had the wide experience of municipal life that the present Chancellor has can be hard-hearted


to the extent of ignoring the conditions of the people with whom the municipalities particularly deal. This duty is a tax upon the necessity of a large section of the community. To say that it is a luxury tax is an absurdity. Tea cannot be described as a luxury, and it has never been so properly described. It is for the working-classes, and particularly the poorest section, a prime necessity, and if you add a tax to it, even to the extent of 7s. to 10s. per annum, you make conditions more difficult for that section of the community, which is to-day admittedly submerged, and living below the poverty line.
This increased duty is a violation of the spirit of the age. Recently, through the public Press and from the pulpit, economists and thinking people generally have revealed a state of affairs lamentable in the extreme, showing that large sections of the community are living in low conditions of life. A universal protest has been heard during the last year or two. The Chancellor and the Government must know that they have still further depressed that considerable mass in the population and have made it more difficult and more costly for them to live. Insufficient food is now admittedly common, and medical officers of health throughout the kingdom are prepared almost universally to agree that from 30 to 50 per cent. of the sickness in their areas is due to malnutrition. That is the case particularly in the great cities, and the Tea Duty has added to the difficulties of the municipalities and increased their burdens, for the maintenance of public health has to be carried out through various remedial agencies in which local authority expenditure is extremely heavy. Nothing could be more startling, now that we are considering questions of defence, than to know how Army standards have been reduced, in order to meet the pigmy race growing up in the industrial areas. The Army now take men 5 feet 2 inches in height, 8 stone 3 lbs. in weight, with defective teeth and eyesight. That is a poor record for the great British people of a great Empire, yet the Chancellor, with a callousness which is surprising, and in spite of his municipal experience, has turned to this duty in order to raise but a relatively small amount.

Mr. LEWIS: Do I understand the hon. Member is arguing that the drinking of tea is calculated to increase a man's height and his weight?

Mr. ADAMS: I should have imagined that the hon. Member would have made a better deduction than that. What I am stating is that a large proportion of our population is under-nourished. The tax upon tea diminishes the amount of those people's income by the amount of the tax. They are, therefore, less able to nourish themselves and it is a step towards producing an even more defective race than exists at the present time. There is an almost universal protest against this increase; I have heard it in the railway train, in trade union meetings and among miners' associations that this is a most reactionary tax in face of the new standard of life which is being demanded on all hands. If the Chancellor could, even at this eleventh hour, see his way to extinguish the tax or to reduce it by half, I am certain that he would have the thanks of the nation.

4.52 p.m.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. W. S. Morrison): Many hon. Members have been confronted in this discussion with the difficulty of finding something new to say about this duty, which has already been thoroughly discussed in the earlier stages of our proceedings. I find myself in sympathy with their position, because the defence of the duty has been so adequately covered in the past that I feel there is very little new that I can add to what has been said.

Mr. TINKER: The Financial Secretary can do something new by giving way.

Mr. MORRISON: I am not prepared to purchase novelty at such a great cost. The case against this tax is always put by hon. Members opposite on the ground that it affects the poorer sections of the community. One would think from some of the expressions used in advancing that argument that it was a tax which affected only that section of the community. The fact is that it is a revenue duty placed on everyone who uses tea. There must be some 35,000,000 of those people in the country and it is idle for hon. Members opposite to pretend that the great bulk of those people are what have been


described as the poorest of the poor. I would ask hon. Members, when they inveigh against the duty, to remember the difficulties that are inherent in any overstatement of the position. It is true that the Chancellor has endeavoured by imposing a Customs Duty to find a source of revenue which would be spread over the whole of the population. The hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Banfield) attempted to win our sympathy by drawing a picture of the old age pensioner paying for a battleship. Let him remember the figures that are involved. The total yield of this additional tax in the whole year is about £3,500,000, and that is being paid for not by old age pensioners exclusively, but by the 35,000,000 tea drinkers in the country. Therefore, to talk about this as a device for making the old age pensioner pay for a battleship is putting the case higher than it will stand.
The hon. Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Barnes), who opened the discussion, referred to the revival of this duty in 1932. He based the revival of the tax on the financial conditions of the time, but I would ask him to remember that when it was reintroduced in 1932 there was another motive in addition to the revenue one, and that was that it was a piece of the Government's policy for giving preferences to the Empire. Without such a duty that would have been impossible.

Mr. BARNES: If that were the major purpose, there was no need to add 2d.

Mr. MORRISON: It was not the major purpose. There was another purpose beside the revenue purpose, important as that was; there was the preference motive at work also, and if this duty were entirely destroyed, not only would the revenue be lost, but the means for giving assistance to the producers in the Empire would also be lost. When the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) menaced us with the electoral results of this duty, he was surely forgetting the electoral consequences which followed in 1929. Those of us who remember that contest will recall that the action of the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) in removing the duty in that year did not produce the electoral consequences which, according to the hon. Member, should have been the converse of

those he mentioned. So far as that aspect of the situation is concerned, we have received the hon. Member's menaces with some fortitude and composure.
The hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis) drew attention to a, matter which inspired some of the Amendments earlier on the Paper which were not called. He asked my right hon. Friend for an assurance that, in estimating this year, he has not deliberately provided for a surplus greater than that stated in the Budget. I give my hon. Friend that assurance most definitely. When hon. Members are inclined to criticise what they call the unduly conservative nature of the estimations of my right hon. Friend, let them remember that there is bound to be in this matter a certain element of speculation. No can can foresee the future. There are two sides to the account. There is not only bound to be some uncertainty in regard to the yield of tax, but there is bound to be some uncertainty as to the expenditure side of the account. My right hon. Friend, in budgeting as he has done, has had to make the closest estimate of both sides of the account that he can, and it is bearing these considerations in mind that I can assure my hon. Friend that there is no deliberate provision for a higher surplus than that declared in the Budget.
The hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White) drew attention to certain consequences of the Tea Duty which he declared would follow, one being the reverse consequence to that anticipated by the hon. Member for Colchester. In other words, the hon. Member was of the opinion that this additional taxation would not yield the amount that was expected of it. He drew attention to what he described as certain sluggish conditions in demand in the tea markets. The only thing I can say to reassure him is that the effect of any rise in price upon the consumption of a commodity is always one of the factors taken into consideration in arriving at the final settlement of a duty, and in this case it has been done; but I would also ask him to recollect that as my right hon. Friend told the Committee, speaking on, an earlier Amendment, tea production is to some extent a managed market. There are in existence arrangements between the producers in India arid Ceylon and in the Dutch East Indies for their mutual


advantage and designed to secure a remunerative price, or a reasonable price, for tea. If the hon. Member bears that in mind, and remembers that to that extent it is not a mere question of supply and demand working unchecked upon the market, I think he will see that the results which he anticipates probably will not arise, and that the other consequences which might be feared cannot be anticipated with such certainty as he suggested.
In conclusion, I can only again ask the Committee to take the view, which my right hon. Friend has already indicated, namely, that my right hon. Friend is quite right, when facing this additional expenditure, not to put on one section of the taxpayers an obligation which is a national one and is not confined either in its responsibilities or its benefits to any particular section of the population. When hon. Members opposite refer to the burden of taxation upon the poor I would ask them to view the tax position as a whole, and I think it will then be agreed that the Chancellor, in asking those, in all circumstances of life, who consume tea, to contribute £3,500,000 is not asking an undue proportion from any section of the population. When it is remembered that the Income Tax payers, of whom there are approximately 3,500,000, are being asked to contribute an extra £12,000,000 and that the 35,000,000 tea consumers are being asked to contribute only £3,500,000, I think it will be agreed by the Committee as a whole that this is not an unjust burden.
As to the effect of this increase in the Tea Duty upon the family budget, I would point out that the average consumption of tea per head of the population is something like 9¼ lbs. a year, and

that if the whole of this additional duty is passed on it will mean a contribution of something like 1s. 6d. a year per person throughout the whole population. The hon. Member for Consett (Mr. David Adams) cannot seriously pretend that the nutrition of our people will be worsened in the dreadful manner he suggested because an average contribution of 1s. 6d. a year more is being imposed. I should be very sorry to think that the had teeth, the small stature and other things to which he referred could be affected by an expenditure of 1s. 6d. a year. When one tries to get really close to the effect that this will have on the cost of living of the average family it works out at something like 44 of a, point in the cost-of-living index figures. The right hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) has admitted in earlier Debates that we have seasonal variations in the cost-of-living index of two to three points a month for no fiscal or budgetary reasons at all, and when this small rise of half a point is compared with the normal movements of the cost-of-living index figures, I think it will he seen that its effect is—I do not want to describe it as entirely negligible—an effect which is not of such great importance as has been represented. For these reasons I would ask the Committee to agree with my right hon. Friend that he is right in seeking to place the burden of taxation for a national purpose on the nation as equitably as possible, and that when the whole burden of taxation on our people is being increased it is not unreasonable to ask them to pay this additional impost on tea.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 241; Noes, 120.

CLAUSE 2.—(Increased Customs Duty on certain beer.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

5.16 p.m.

Mr. BENSON: We should not allow this Clause to stand part of the Bill unless we have a much more adequate explanation from the Chancellor than he has given us, to satisfy ourselves that this is not merely a piece of pure Protection. There is no reason for Protection for the brewing industry, which is one of the most profitable industries in the country. Why should Protection be given to that industry merely to enable it to increase its profits? I happen to have received in the post this morning an investment communication from a stock and share company, and I turned up, out of curiosity, the list of brewery companies to see how they were doing. I found, in the first few I looked at, that £1 worth of stock stood at 133s., 132s., 87s., 46s., and so on respectively, right through the list of the brewery companies. They are all making money at the present time and paying very large dividends on their ordinary shares, which stand anywhere from one and a-half times to five times premium. On what grounds is the Chancellor giving Protection to an industry like that? I hope that he will give us an explanation.

5.17 p.m.

Sir HUGH SEELY: It is clear that this tax is protective and is not simply a revenue tax. It is not even a very high one, because the amount of revenue

which will be received is about £27.000. It is not a tax on all beer, but upon lager beer, which, as everybody knows, is produced better abroad than here. There is no doubt that Pilsener beer—the German beer—and the Danish lager beer are better than the lager beer which is produced here. Therefore this tax is pure Protection against other countries. I do not see that the money which will result will be of much advantage to the Exchequer. The tax will give Protection to the one trade in this country which is not asking for it, and certainly does not need it.

5.18 p.m.

Viscountess ASTOR: I cannot follow the last speaker in his analysis of which beer is best, but I agree that if there is one trade which does not need Protection it is the brewery trade, and I hope that that is not the argument for this Clause. I know the Chancellor of the Exchequer has done his best for the brewers in times past. The social effect of these taxes has not been of great benefit to the country though they may have helped the Chancellor. I say to the Chancellor in all seriousness that it is no good the Government spending millions of pounds a year in trying to reduce the number of accidents and at the same time increasing in any way the drinking which, as we all know, has a great deal to do with motoring accidents. In the last two or three days I have come across information showing how appalling the position is and how a great deal of it is entirely caused by over-indulgence. I beg the Chancellor of the Exchequer to tell us


why he has brought this Clause in and whether it is to protect the brewing industry. I would remind the House that the brewing industry is one of the few industries in the world in which the Government have to discourage, not increase, the production. The others are opium and drugs. Now about milk—[Interruption]—

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr. Entwistle): Order.

Viscountess ASTOR: I would ask the Chair to protect me from interruptions.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: The Noble Lady must not provoke interruptions. She has already gone rather beyond the point and is now about to deal with milk, which is getting much too far away from the question before the Committee.

Viscountess ASTOR: I should have thought that drink included everything, milk as well. I want to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for an explanation. The last man I should like to vote against would be the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I hate to find myself in such mixed company while doing so. I should like to have an explanation that it is not the desire of the Chancellor to protect the one trade which needs no Protection, and has been a menace to the country ever since it was invented. It is one of the richest, and I would say—but perhaps I had better not say it.

5.23 p.m.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: I welcome the tax on lager beer, as a drinker of that beverage from time to time. The tax is desirable for just the reason for which the hon. Member for Berwick-on-Tweed (Sir H. Seely) disagrees with it. In the case of the ordinary member of the public on going into a shop it ought not to be necessary for him to have before him the suggestion: "Do not buy that; it is unpatriotic. Support British labour and British production, and help your own country." That is a matter for the Government to decide. The hon. Member for Berwick-on-Tweed may prefer Pilsener beer, but we should not be put into the position, when we want a glass of it, of feeling that we may be unpatriotic in not supporting home industry. It is the duty of the Government to put a tax on foreign goods or beverages of the proper

amount to level them up with the beverages which are produced in our own country. We ought to be able to have a foreign article or beverage knowing that we are paying something extra towards the taxes of the country in doing so, and that is the reason why I welcome the duty. When I have had a glass of the foreign beer, I have always felt a certain amount of guilt for not supporting home industry, but I shall now be able to have a half-pint or a pint of it knowing that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has put upon it enough tax to level it up with the beer produced in this country. It is a very good principle to go upon, and I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will stick to it.

Viscountess ASTOR: If we could persuade the hon. Member that it was better for the country that he should drink milk, would he drink milk?

Sir W. DAVISON: I am very fond of milk and would like to drink it, but it is not good for me.

5.25 p.m.

Mr. BELLENGER: The Clause has given the Noble Lady an opportunity of saying something against the drink trade. I can assure her, after experience of lager beer, both imported and home-produced, that motoring accidents are not much due to the kind of lager beer which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is proposing to tax. It is very good beer, and it is probably better when drunk abroad than when it is drunk at home. The taxation of imported lager beer is not appropriately done through the Budget. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer felt it necessary to put a tax upon it, that should have been done through the Import Duties Advisory Committee and not by means of the Finance Bill for the year. It may, of course, be due to the Chancellor's insularity that he believes that home-produced beer is much better than the foreign beer, upon which he is proposing to put the tax, and if that is so I have nothing more to say, but perhaps we shall hear from the Chancellor why he is proposing the tax.

Sir JOSEPH LAMB: I support the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I would like to ask a question regarding the tax. Hon. Gentlemen have referred to foreign beer. May I ask whether any


undertaking has been given that, when the brewers have received this concession, they will use British materials, so that the term "foreign beer" cannot be used because the beer will be a British product produced from British barley?

5.26 p.m.

Sir JOHN WARDLAW-MILNE: I had great difficulty in following the arguments of the speakers who objected to the tax because the breweries were making large profits. That seems to be a very strong argument for cheaper beer but not necessarily an argument for drinking foreign beer. One hon. Gentleman said he was very hopeful that this was not a tax for the purpose of Protection, but many of us hope that it is. In the past we may not have produced suitable lager beer in this country, but we may be able to do so by means of this Protection, and it is assumed that that is the object of the tax. I sincerely hope that that is the object which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has in view. I do not know anything about the brewing trade or whether it is possible to make lager beer in this country as well as they do abroad, but one way of proving whether we can do so may be this tax.

5.28 p.m.

Colonel GRETTON: I think hon. Members are viewing this matter out of proportion to its due importance. The tax affects only a very small number of people and a very small production of beer. So far as I can discover, there are six breweries producing lager beer in this country, and the whole amount brewed until this year did not exceed about 100,000 barrels per annum. This year the quantity may be in excess of that amount, but the matter is a very small one. The Committee may like to know that I am not concerned in any way with this product and that I am not speaking for my own brewery. The returns show a large importation of beer by far the greater part of which comes from the Dominions, and particularly from the Irish Free State and Dublin. Since the change was made to the new constitution, that beer is classed as Dominion beer. Foreign imported beer is included in the total of the same return.
Hon. Members are making a mountain out of a molehill. The tax is intended to

encourage the production of lager beer in this country. The importations of foreign beer have shown a tendency to increase. Some hon. Members seem to think that lager beer is very light, but competent analysts find that it contains more alcohol than it is generally reputed to contain. The Chancellor has taken the right course in encouraging the production of lager beer in this country, so that those who wish to drink it may be encouraged to drink lager beer of British production. There is nothing more in the matter than that. Hon. Members who try to make out that this is a great concession to the brewing industry, and desire to make it a matter of temperance propaganda, are entirely wide of the mark, and it is rather characteristic that they should make exaggerated statements without any attempt to learn what the real facts of the case are.

5.32 p.m.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Some of the observations that have been made on this Clause seemed to indicate an idea, on the part of the hon. Members who have made them, that this is a measure of protection for brewers and breweries as a whole. The remarks of my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton) must, I think, have dispelled any illusion of that kind, and it is only necessary for me to add, to what my right hon. and gallant Friend said, that, while the production of lager beer in this country amounted in 1935 to about 114,000 barrels, the production of other British beer amounted to 22,000,000 barrels. It will be seen, therefore, that it is a very small matter. I should be very sorry if my Noble Friend the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) should find it necessary to vote against me on this or any other occasion. If I explain that she has fallen into a slight error about the nature of lager beer, perhaps she will be able to support me on this occasion as on previous occasions. Evidently my Noble Friend thought that what may be called light beers are less likely to cause that cerebral disturbance which may be set down as a cause of road accidents, but, if she will try for herself the effect of lager beer, she will find that its alcoholic strength is not less than that of other beers, and, therefore, I am sure she will be very glad to know that a tax


is proposed, even though of a moderate character, upon its importation.
Some hon. Members have denounced this proposal on the ground that it is a piece of pure Protection, but it is precisely on that ground that I recommend it to the Committee. We are now a protectionist country; we have introduced a general tariff; and the only reason why I am obliged to deal with this matter in the Budget, instead of allowing it to be dealt with through the Import Duties Advisory Committee, is that under the Statute that body cannot deal with a commodity which is already the subject of a Revenue duty. It is because producers of lager beer have been put in what I must call a prejudiced position owing to the fact that they are not able to make to the Committee the application that other industries can make, and have their case examined, that I have had to make this proposal in the Budget. I see no reason at all why this particular industry should be excluded from the general rule which applies to other importations.
The hon. Member for Berwick (Sir H. Seely) said that foreign lager beer was better than English lager beer. That may be so; I am not an expert on the subject; I dare say he is quite right; but, if that is to be used as an argument, exactly the same argument could be used about any other commodity. The experience is that, with the protection afforded by the tariff, British manufacturers have so improved the quality of their products that in many respects they are not only equal to foreign products, but actually excel them in quality and favour in the markets. I hope that this moderate amount of protection which is to be given to those who produce lager beer will enable them so to improve their product that the hon. Member will be able in future to drink British lager beer with just as much satisfaction as he now drinks German or Danish. I do not think that hon. Members need be afraid that this is going to add unduly to the brewers' profits, in view of the figures I have given, but. I think it will give an amount of encouragement which will increase employment in certain branches of the brewing industry. With reference to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) about British barley, no doubt the Brewers' Society will consider themselves covered as re-

gards the production of lager beer, by the general promise which they gave me some time ago.

Viscountess ASTOR: Have they kept it?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have very much pleasure in saying that, so far as I understand, the Brewers' Society have kept to that promise. They have very much increased their purchases of British barley, and, although the quality of the barley has to be taken into account, and is, I understand, influenced considerably by climatic conditions, which vary from year to year, they are doing their best to increase the proportion of British barley which they use in the production of their beer. I hope, therefore, that this moderate proposal may now go forward without further delay.

Colonel GRETTON: I understand that the brewers of lager beer are included in the general undertaking given by the other brewers of this country, and that they have been using their best endeavours to carry it out as regards their purchases of British barley.

Mr. BENSON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether my interpretation is correct, that the only reason why this duty has been introduced is that this is a. small product which has not been protected, and, therefore, he wanted to round off his complete scheme of Protection? Is it introduced simply on the theoretical ground that he wants to increase the amount of Protection in this country, or is there any reason, in the industry itself or anywhere else, that would justify the introduction of the tax?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member suggests that this proposal is introduced for theoretical reasons, but that is not the case at all. The reason is a practical one, namely, that the policy of Protection, to the moderate extent to which we have hitherto applied it, is a good thing for the country, and I do not see why any particular product should be excepted from the general rule because it is not possible for the industry under the Act to make application in the ordinary way to the Import Duties Advisory Committee.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 241; Noes, 124.

Division No. 214.]
AYES.
[5.7 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Bllndell, Sir J
Cartland, J. R. H.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Bossom, A. C.
Cary, R. A.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Boulton, W. W.
Cautley, Sir H. S.


Albery, I. J.
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)


Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.
Boyce, H. Leslie
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)


Apsley, Lord
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (Br. W.)


Assheton, R.
Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)


Astor, Vlsc'tess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Channon, H.


Atholl, Duchess of
Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Bullock, Capt. M.
Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)


Balniel, Lord
Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Chorlton, A. E. L.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Burton, Col. H. W.
Christie, J. A.


Bernays, R. H.
Butler, R. A.
Clarry, Sir Reginald


Blair, Sir R.
Campbell, Sir E. T.
Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir G. P.




Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J.
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmln)


Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Hulbert, N. J.
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Hume, Sir G. H
Rayner, Major R. H.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S.G'gs)
Hunter, T.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Hurd, Sir P. A.
Remer, J. R.


Courthope, Col. Sir G. L.
Jackson, Sir H.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Craddock, Sir R. H.
James, Wing-Commander A. W.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Craven-Ellis, W.
Jarvis, Sir J. J.
Runciman, Rt. Hon. W.


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Joel, D. J. B.
Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Jones, L. (Swansea, W.)
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Crowder, J. F. E.
Keeling, E. H.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Cruddas, Col. S.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Salt, E. W.


Davison, Sir W. H.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Samuel, Sir A. M. (Farnham)


Dawson, Sir P.
Kirkpatrick, W. M.
Sandys, E. D.


De Chair, S. S.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Selley, H. R.


Conner, P. W.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.
Shakespeare, G. H.


Drewe, C.
Latham, Sir P.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)
Law Sir A. J. (High Peak)
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Dugdale, Major T. L
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.


Duggan, H. J.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Duncan, J. A. L.
Levy, T.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Dunglass, Lord
Lewis, O.
Smithers, Sir W.


Dunne, P. R. R.
Lindsay, K. M.
Somerset, T.


Eckersley, P. T.
Lloyd, G. W.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Loftus, P. C.
Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.


Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Spender-Clay, Lt.-Ct. Rt. Hn. H. H.


Erskine Hill, A. G.
Lumley, Capt. L. R.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Flldes, Sir H.
Lyons, A. M.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Mac Andrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Storey, S.


Furness, S. N.
MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Scot. U.)
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


Ganzonl, sir J.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Gledhill, G.
McKie, J. H.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Gluckstein, L. H.
Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.
Sutcliffe, H.


Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
Maitland, A.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Goodman, Col. A. W.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Tate, Mavis C.


Gower, Sir R. V.
Manningham-Butler, Sir M.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Titchfleld, Marquess of


Gridley, Sir A. B.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Touche, G. C.


Grimston, R. V.
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Turton, R. H.


Guest, Maj. Hon. O.(C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)
Moore, Lieut.-Col. T. C. R.
Wakefield, W. W.


Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Moreing, A. C.
Wallace, Captain Euan


Guy, J. C. M.
Morgan, R. H.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H.
Ward, Irene (Wallsend)


Hamilton, Sir G. C.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Unlv's.)
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Hanbury, Sir C.
Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester)
Warrender, Sir V.


Hannah, I. C.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Munro, P.
Wayland, Sir W. A.


Harbord, A.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Wells, S. R.


Hartington, Marquess of
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Palmer, G. E. H.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Patrick, C. M.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan.
Peake, O.
Wise, A. R.


Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Penny, Sir G.
Withers, Sir J. J.


Herbert, Captain S. (Abbey)
Peters, Dr. S. J.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)
Pethorick, M.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Holmes, J. S.
Pilkington, R.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Pownall, Sir Assheton



Hore-Bellsha, Rt. Hon. L.
Radford, E. A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir R. S.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Major George Davies and Lieut.-


Horsbrugh, Florence
Ramsbotham, H.
Colonel Llewellin.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Ramsden, Sir E.





NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)


Acland, R. T, D. (Barnstaple)
Burke, W. A.
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)


Adams, D. (Consett)
Cape, T.
Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Chater, D.
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.


Adamson, W. M.
Cluse, W. S.
Gallacher, W.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Gardner, B. W.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Compton, J.
Green, W. H. (Deptford)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Cove, W. G.
Grenfell, D. R.


Banfield, J. W.
Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)


Barnes, A. J.
Daggar, G.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)


Barr, J.
Dalton, H.
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)


Batey, J.
Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Groves, T. E.


Ballenger, F.
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)


Benson, G.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)


Bevan, A.
Day, H.
Hardle, G. D.


Bromfield, W.
Dobble, W.
Harris, Sir P. A.







Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Mathers, G.
Simpson, F. B.


Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Maxton, J.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Messer, F.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Montague, F.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Hopkin, D.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Jagger, J.
Naylor, T. E.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Oliver, G. H.
Sorensen, R. W.


Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Paling, W.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Parker, J.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Parkinson, J. A.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Kelly, W. T.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Thorne, W.


Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Potts, J.
Thurtle, E.


Kirby, B. V.
Price, M. P.
Tinker, J. J.


Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Riley, B.
Viant, S. P.


Lathan, G.
Ritson, J.
Walker, J.


Leonard, W.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Watkins, F. C.


Leslie, J. R.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
White, H. Graham


Logan, D. G.
Rothschild, J. A. de
Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)


Lunn, W.
Rowson, G.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Seely, Sir H. M.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


McGhee, H. G.
Sexton, T. M.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Maclean, N.
Shinwell, E.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


MacNelli, Weir, L.
Short, A.



Marklew, E.
Silkin, L.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Marshall, F.
Silverman, S. S.
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. John.

Division No. 215.]
AYES.
15.40 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Gledhill, G.
Munro, P.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Gluckstein, L. H.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.


Albery, I. J.
Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Goodman, Col. A. W.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.
Gower, Sir R. V.
Palmer, G. E. H.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Patrick, C. M.


Apsley, Lord
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Penny, Sir G.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Peters, Dr. S. J.


Assheton, R.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Petherick, M.


Astor, Visc'tess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Grimston, R. V.
Pilkington, R.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Atholl, Duchess of
Guest, Maj. Hon. O.(C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)
Radford, E. A.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Guy, J. C. M.
Ramsden, Sir E.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Balneil, Lord
Hamilton, Sir G. C.
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Hanbury, Sir C.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Bernays, R. H.
Hannah, I. C.
Remer, J. R.


Blair, Sir R.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Blindell, Sir J.
Harbord, A.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)
Runciman. Rt. Hon. W.


Bossom, A. C.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)


Boulton, W. W.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Salt, E. W.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Herbert, Captain S. (Abbey)
Samuel, Sir A. M. (Farnham)


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)
Sandys, E. D.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Holmes, J. S.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Selley, H. R.


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.
Shakespeare, G. H.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Burton, Col. H. W.
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)
Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Hulbert, N. J.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Cary, R. A.
Hunter, T.
Smithers, Sir W.


Cautley, Sir H. S.
Hurd, Sir P. A.
Somerset, T.


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Jackson, Sir H.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)
Jarvis, Sir J. J.
Southby, Comdr, A. R. J.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Joel, D. J. B.
Spender-Clay, Lt.-Cl. Rt. Hn. H. H.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (Br. W.)
Jones, L. (Swansea, W.)
Spens, W. P.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N (Edgb't'n)
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Channon, H.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm't'd)


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Kirkpatrick, W. M.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Storey, S.


Chorlton, A. E. L.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


Christie, J. A.
Latham, Sir P.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Colfox, Major W. P.
Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir G. P.
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Levy, T.
Sutcliffe, H.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Lewis, O.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S.G'gs)
Lindsay, K. M.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Lloyd, G. W.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Courthope, Col. Sir G. L.
Loftus, P. C.
Titchfield, Marquess of


Craddock, Sir R. H.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Touche, G. C,


Croft, Brig.-Gen. sir H. Page
Lumley, Capt. L. R.
Train, Sir J.


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Crowder, J. F. E.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Cruddas, Col. B.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Turton, R. H.


Davies, C. (Montgomery)
MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Scot. U.)
Wallace, Captain Euan


Davison, Sir W. H.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Ward, Lieut.-col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Dawson, Sir P.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Ward, Irene (Wallsend)


De Chair, S. S.
McKie, J. H.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.
Warrender, Sir V.


Donner, P. W.
Maitland, A.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Drewe, C.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Wayland, Sir W. A.


Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Wells, S. R.


Dugdale, Major T. L.
Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Duncan, J. A. L.
Maxwell, S. A.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Dunglas, Lord
Mayhew, Lt.-Col, J.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Dunne, P. R. R.
Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Eastwood, J. F.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Withers, Sir J. J.


Eckersley, P. T.
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Moore, Lieut.-Col. T. C. R.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Erskine Hill, A. G.
Moreing, A, C.



Flldes, Sir H.
Morgan, R. H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H.
Major George Davies and Lieut.-


Furness, S. N.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Colonel Llewellin.


Ganzoni, Sir J,
Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester)








NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Acland, R. T, D. (Barnstaple)
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Potts, J.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Price, M. P.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Hardie, G. D.
Pritt, D. N.


Adamson, W. M.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Riley, B.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Ritson, J.


Ammon, C. G.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Rothschild, J. A. de


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Rowson, G.


Banfield, J. W.
Jagger, J.
Salter, Dr. A.


Barnes, A. J.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Seely, Sir H. M.


Barr, J.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Sexton, T. M.


Batey, J.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Shinwell, E.


Bellenger, F.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Short, A.


Benson, G.
Jones, J. J. (Silvertown)
Silkin, L.


Bevan, A.
Kelly, W. T.
Silverman, S. S.


Bromfield, W.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Simpson, F. B.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Lansbury. Rt. Hon. G.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Burke, W. A
Lathan, G.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Cape, T.
Leonard, W.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Chater, D.
Leslie, J. R.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Cluse, W. S.
Logan, D. G.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Lunn, W.
Sorensen, R. W.


Compton, J.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Cove, W. G.
McEntee, V. La T.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
McGhee, H. G.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Daggar, G.
MacLaren, A.
Thorne, W.


Dalton, H.
Maclean, N.
Thurtle, E.


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
MacNeill, Weir, L.
Tinker, J. J.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Viant, S. P.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Markiew, E.
Walker, J.


Day, H.
Marshall, F.
Watkins, F. C.


Dobbie, W.
Mathers, G.
White, H. Graham


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Maxton, J.
Whiteley, W.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Messer, F.
Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Montague, F.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Evans, E. (Univ, of Wales)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Ha'kn'y, S.)
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Gallacher, W.
Morrison, R C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Gardner, B. W.
Naylor, T. E.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Oliver, G. H.



Grenfell, D. R.
Paling, W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Parker, J.
Mr. Groves and Mr. John.


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Parkinson, J. A.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 4.—(Extension of period of stabilisation of rates of Imperial Preference.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

5.50 p.m.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: This is the Clause which extends the period of Imperial Preference for one year. We have not yet had any explanation of this proposal. Indeed, I do not think the opportunity arose upon the Budget Resolutions. Perhaps the Financial Secretary will tell me whether my interpretation of it is the right one. I gather that it refers only to the pre-tariff duties, which were stabilised in 1926 for the next 10 years, bringing us to this date. If they are extended for another year, they will continue until 19th August, 1937. The Ottawa Duties were imposed in 1932 for five years and they will also expire this year. I imagine that the purpose of the

Clause is that, when the Ottawa Duties are once again discussed, the whole range of Imperial preferential duties can be dealt with at the same time. I rise now not to express any opinion on the Clause but to ask for an explanation of what it really indicates.

5.52 p.m.

Mr. W. S. MORRISON: The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct in his assumptions as to the purpose of the Clause and the ground that it covers. These duties were stabilised by Section 7 of the Finance Act, 1926, and the effect of this Clause is to extend that stabilisation until 19th August, 1937. The reason why that particular date has been chosen is that it is the earliest date on which any of the Ottawa Agreements can expire, with one exception. The reason why the Clause extends the stabilisation to that date is because of the convenience which it is anticipated will be found in having that particular period in which to negotiate any fresh agreements or alter agreements now existing. I think I can commend the machinery to the Com-


mittee with complete confidence. There is one thing I ought to say, because a certain amount of anxiety has been expressed in some quarters. The Government gave an undertaking with regard to the existing sugar preferences to both Australia and South Africa, that 18 months' notice would be given of any modification. That is not the same period of time that is stated in the Clause, but I can assure the Committee that it is without prejudice to that undertaking and the Government have no intention of departing from it.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: That is the answer that I rather anticipated would be given and it certainly satisfies me.

Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 5.—(Extension and Amendment of 11 and 12 Geo. 5. c. 47.)

5.55 p.m.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: I beg to move, in page 3, line 33, to leave out "ten years," and to insert "one year."
We come now to a Clause to which we attach importance and which we intend to resist. It deals with the key industry duties and the Safeguarding of Industries Act and renews them for another ten years. We shall oppose it because we see no reason at all why there should be two different tariffs, and we consider that it was a mistake when the Import Duties Act was carried, that it did not simply absorb and include the key industry duties and the Safeguarding of Industries Act just as it absorbed other protectionist Acts, such as the Abnormal Importation Act. This has been discussed before, and the argument from the Government Bench was that these key industry duties represent a very special set of circumstances, that these articles are vital to national safety in time of emergency and, therefore, that they need to have particular care taken in regard to them. But that is the very reason for bringing them within the machinery of the Import Duties Act, because it has sufficient elasticity to deal with industries which have some particular circumstances connected with them. That Act set up the Import Duties Advisory Committee, consisting of three persons who are paid high salaries and who sit, I believe, several times a week, whose special duty

it is to consider what are the particular circumstances connected with an industry and give it a tariff in accordance with the circumstances that it finds.
That machinery is important from the point of view not only of the industry itself, but of industry as a whole because, although such articles as wireless valves may be important in time of war, they are very important in time of peace. They are very important to other industries, and this machinery, by which you can consider the requirements of other industries which use these commodities, is I think specially adapted to these key industry duties. But, if you pass this Clause now, it will mean that you select a special little group of industries and apply to them the machinery by which, quite apart from any other industries, they shall not be in a position to receive any comment or criticism for the next 10 years. Their whole record shows that they are industries which are in special need of comment and criticism, because their record is not a good one. It has not carried out the anticipations which the House formed when it originally gave them this protection 15 years ago. These key industry duties were first carried in 1929 and they were given protection for five years only, because it was believed that at the end of that time they would have shown themselves so competent to stand on their own feet that no further protection would be needed. I can quote the words of the present Prime Minister on that presumption. He said:
I myself stand by the five years which we have thought fit for this purpose.
The five years passed, and brought us to 1926, when the industries still claimed that they could not stand on their own feet and must have further protection for another 10 years. When that was given to them, the right hon. Gentleman who is now President of the Board of Trade remarked:
They are now on such a healthy basis that they can altogether dispense with this hot-air treatment.
Another 10 years has gone by, and again it is proposed to extend the protection for 10 further years by this system which is peculiar to the industries themselves. The whole of this record shows that these are not industries which ought to be left entirely free from, at any rate, that amount of supervision which the


Import Duties Advisory Committee exercises over all the other protected industries of the country. The original Committee on whose recommendations the Bill was based in 1921 definitely reported that if it was found that these industries could not stand on their own feet as a result of Protection, a suggestion which ought to be taken into account was that these industries should be subject to State control.
The Government have not given 10 seconds' consideration to that proposal, and indeed their political position would prevent it. They are now asking us to set up a series of industries which have shown themselves to be stagnant and unprogressive, and which, behind this special shelter, will be able to continue, quietly and cosily, making easy money without any comment or criticism until the year 1946. Not only shall we oppose the Clause, but I would observe that, though this Clause may be passed for 10 years, no Parliament can bind future Parliaments, and, on behalf of those with whom I act, I distinctly state that whatever may be the fate of this particular Bill, it will not preclude us, if the opportunity comes our way, and if we think it right, from taking everything connected with these industries into account in considering what will be the best for national interest and national safety.

6.4 p.m.

Mr. HOLMES: Every Member of the Committee will have read last week with great interest the announcement of the large number of men who have been got back into employment, in addition to the various numbers who have returned to work during the past few years. One reason why so many men are getting back to employment is because the leaders of industry in this country have a feeling of security with regard to the future, as the result of the last General Election in November, when business men realised that at least for four years we were going to have a stable and a sane Government. In addition, the Safeguarding of Industries Act has contributed very greatly to the number of men who have got back to employment. If we were to leave this Act in the air, only to be continued one year at a time, many leaders of industry would hesitate to develop their present businesses or to start new businesses.

It is necessary to give that sense of security to the business leaders of the country, and this will be done if they are informed that the Safeguarding of Industries Act is to be continued for another 10 years. Coupled with the fact that we have now a stable and a sane Government for at least four years, the business leaders of the country will have that sense of security which will enable them to extend their businesses and to start new ones, and I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will resist the Amendment.

6.7 p.m.

Mr. BELLENGER: I rise to support the Amendment, and although I have very little to add to what my right hon. Friend has said, I would emphasise to the Committee that before we give this 10 years of safeguarding to these industries, it is necessary for some inquiry to take place in order to investigate some of the statements made not only by my right hon. Friend, but in certain other quarters. I can understand that, if this country were in a state of national emergency, as it was from 1914 to 1918, it would be necessary to protect certain of our industries required for national purposes. I suggest that the method which has been adopted from 1921 onwards for protecting some of these industries is not the right way to do it. If the necessity should arise again, as it might, those industries ought not to be carried on in the same hands and in the same way as they are at the moment.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I gathered from the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman who opened the Debate that the discussion on the Amendment was rather wide in its application. We must either keep it strictly to the term of years or have a general discussion on the principle of the Clause. I am in the hands of the Committee as to which hon. Members would find more convenient.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: I think that it would be more convenient to discuss the general principle on this Amendment. I assume that it will not preclude us from dealing in particular with our Amendments regarding wireless valves and so on.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Most certainly not; only I do not want to have the arguments repeated on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." I only wanted to make it clear.

Mr. BELLENGER: My arguments are addressed really to the subject-matter of the Amendment. Before we give another 10 years' period of safeguarding to these industries, there ought to be adequate inquiry into the whole matter.

6.9 p.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): The hon. Gentleman the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) said with justice that, before a proposal was put before the Committee that the safeguarding duties should be extended for a period of 10 years, there ought to be a full inquiry into the whole matter, and particularly into the different industries which come within the Schedule—for instance, into such matters as whether, sheltering behind Protection, these industries have inflated their prices; whether consumers have had any justifiable complaints; and whether there have been any proper research and improvements in matters of production? It is precisely because there has been that inquiry, and because all those questions have been answered by the report of a committee appointed by the Board of Trade—it is in Cmd. Paper 5157—that this Clause is introduced into this year's Finance Bill.

Mr. BELLENGER: When was the report published?

Dr. BURGIN: In April, 1936. The report, which is an extremely interesting document and ought to command the attention of every Member of this Committee, deals precisely with the very matters which the hon. Member for Bassetlaw very properly has in mind. The committee found, after taking elaborate evidence of manufacturers, consumers, and defence services, that we are dealing here with a group of industries, special in themselves, of essential importance to the country, that they are industries in which skilled labour is short and in which it takes many years to develop research. They found, speaking generally, that adequate research has been made, that continued research is being maintained and that prices have not been inflated. These are, in effect, quotations from the committee's report. The whole effect of Clause 5 of the Bill is to give in legislative form the conclusions of this committee appointed by

the President of the Board of Trade for the express purpose of making the investigation referred to. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) said that in 1921 these duties were introduced. The problem was examined by the Committee of Commercial and Industrial Policy after the War. Learning from the result of a period of emergency of the gaps in our industrial manufacture, the committee was appointed to indicate what should be done. Among the conclusions to which the committee then came, was the following important one:
Industries which have already been described as key or pivotal should be maintained in the country at all hazards and at any expense. No ordinary economic rules apply to the situation of these minor, but important industries, they must be kept alive either by loans, by subsidy, by tariff, by Government contracts, or, in the last event by Government manufacture. They will necessarily be subject to Government supervision.
That was the position in 1921. In 1926 the question of continuation came before a Departmental Committee. A review was undertaken, and another review has now been undertaken because of the expiration of the 10 years from the period recommended in 1926. On 19th August this year these duties would expire, and these industries, built up for the nation's benefit in the way I have would indicated, be unprotected by the Key Industry Duties if we had no further legislation. The legislation proposed by the Government is to implement the report of a full, thorough and adequate investigation into the whole of the circumstances. That committee, which was presided over by a Member of this House, and included Sir Harold Hartley, Mr. Benton Jones and Sir Allan Powell, was a very representative committee. The Government can do no other, in their opinion, than implement the conclusions to which the committee had come. This particular Amendment, which seeks to reduce the period of 10 years to one year, would go contrary to the whole basis of the committee's report. The committee reported expressly that these are industries which ought to be put outside the category altogether of industries to which there is a possibility of an alteration of the rate of duty. They are industries which are of essential national


importance and in which it is more important to concentrate upon research regardless of the economic return.
By giving a 10-year extension the object is to enable those in charge of the industries, the chemical, optical or whatever the industry may be, to lay down a long-term policy of research, to incur expenditure on plant and to engage and train suitable skilled labour. The whole of these improvements would be jeopardised by the shortening of the 10-year period to one year. None of that research would be embarked upon with anything like the same degree of security, capital would not be made available and labour could not be trained. To cut down the period to one year would defeat the committee's recommendation. With that explanation, I hope that we may be allowed to proceed to deal with the other detailed points of subsequent Amendments. To accept the present Amendment would be to go in the teeth of the recommendation of the committee which was appointed expressly to consider this one point.

6.16 p.m.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: Before the Minister parts from the subject, I would ask him whether he can give the Committee an assurance on one point? He has based most of his speech upon the report of the Committee apponted by his own Department. He will be aware that in some particulars, especially on the question of research, that Committee pointed out that there is a lack of co-operation in research among these particular industries. Paragraph 11 says:
In no industries are research and development of more vital importance than in those upon which the country is specially dependent for its defence; we have, consequently, paid particular attention to this part of the problem.
Later, they say:
We have noted that in some industries there is a lack of co-ordination in research among the producing units and it appears to us that if there was closer co-operation between them in this respect, the money devoted to research could be spent more effectively by planning the work on a more comprehensive basis and making the results more widely applicable.
I should like an assurance that some notice is going to be paid by these industries to these criticisms. There is no evidence that these criticisms have been taken notice of, and when we have passed

this Clause we part with it until 1946. In paragraph 17, the report refers to salesmanship, and says:
It is only fair to state that some of our witnesses did not altogether appreciate that their salesmanship lacked both method and intensity.
I should like an assurance from the Minister that the attention of these industries has been or will be called to these remarks, and that he will get their observations and their guarantees that they will meet these criticisms, on the basis of which this Clause is now being passed.

6.19 p.m.

Dr. BURGIN: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for calling attention to the paragraphs to which he has alluded. I had, not unnaturally, anticipated that he would probably desire to deal with this side of the matter, and in preparing myself for to-day's Debate I have investigated this matter, and am glad to be able to tell the Committee that, broadly speaking, the research has been found to be satisfactory. In some of the smaller industries the amount set aside for research was not up to expectation and was not spent perhaps to the greatest advantage. There was lack of co-operation. It has been found that the smaller industries where that criticism applies are precisely the industries where the Defence Departments are most likely to have some measure of suggestive influence: some measure of control. It is precisely in some of these smaller firms, spread over rather wide classes of industry, where it is possible for the Defence Departments to have a much closer contact, and by that closer contact to encourage a better expenditure of the money for research. The attention of these departments has been called by the Board of Trade to this matter and any possible steps that can be taken to stimulate informal co-operation in the research departments of the particular industries to which the paragraphs quoted refer, will be taken. The matter has already been dealt with Departmentally. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee will accept my assurance that that side of the matter has already been dealt with by the Department.

6.21 p.m.

Mr. BENSON: I am afraid that the speech of the Minister is not such as will


persuade me of the virtue of giving ten years further protection to these industries. He was compelled to admit, when my right hon. Friend called attention to it, that the report of the committee appointed by his own Department states that a good deal of disorganisation and lack of co-ordination exist in research, and he has admitted that the particular industries affected by the lack of research are those industries which are most primarily concerned with defence organisation.

Dr. BURGIN: indicated dissent.

Mr. BENSON: The hon. Member said that, quite definitely. That may not be what he meant to say, but it is certainly and definitely what he said. His words were, that it was perfectly true—he himself had examined the matter—that in certain small industries there was lack of co-ordination in research and that those industries were particularly connected with the defence industries.

Dr. BURGIN: I said they are particular industries in which the Defence Departments can have an influence and can have some measure of supervision. I do not want the hon. Member to misquote me by suggesting that they are the principal industries which are of importance to national defence. That is twisting the argument in exactly the opposite way. These are industries, scattered industries, in which the Defence Departments will be able to exercise an influence.

Mr. BENSON: I was not trying to twist the hon. Member's words. I was pointing out that in certain industries which are intimately connected with defence—he will not deny that—although they have already had 15 years of protection, disorganisation still continues. When these particular duties were first introduced a special protective period was given in which it was thought that they would be able to establish themselves and institute a long-term policy of research, but in those industries in direct contact with the defence services that has failed to be done. What the condition is in other industries I do not know.
The Minister drew a pessimistic picture of what would happen if these industries were given the normal annual protection that other industries have. He said that

it would be impossible to arrange programmes of research, that capital would not be available for development and that labour could not be trained. What about the industries that have not 10 years protection? Is there no research in those industries? Is labour not trained and is capital not available in those industries? Is there something particular which makes the wireless valve industries incapable of training this labour, incapable of obtaining capital and incapable of organising research in the same way that any other industry which has not a 10 years protection can do? If there is, if the people in charge of those industries are so much less capable than the people in industries which have only an annual protection, then sooner or later, and the sooner the better, the method of nationalisation of the industry should be adopted. We shall vote against this extension to 10 years and in favour of our Amendment. We had hoped that the Government would accept our Amendment, but the statement of the Minister on this Clause and the earlier statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that protection for protection's sake is the policy of the Government, makes us realise that we shall get nothing from the Government except the pleasure of voting against them.

6.26 p.m.

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: The Opposition must be in profound difficulty when their only attack on this Clause is based on quotations which have been made, I will not say maliciously, but incompletely from the report of the committee. The committee in their report did indicate the possibility of some improvement in research. They said:
We are satisfied, with some minor exceptions, that research is being continuously undertaken, and that large sums of money are being annually expended for the purpose.
That is their main comment. No attention has been drawn to that statement by the Opposition. The report goes on to say:
We have noted, however, that in some industries there is a lack of co-ordination in research among the producing units and it appears to us that if there was closer co-operation between them in this respect the money devoted to research could be spent more effectively, etc.
They have drawn attention to the minor cases. The hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) argues that those


cases were in particular those concerned with the Defence Departments.

Mr. BENSON: I was merely quoting the Minister.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Why not read the document? It is in the Vote Office. I asked a few minutes ago that they should obtain a supply of the report, because it would appear that some hon. Members need education. The committee's reference to defence is this, that where the minor exceptions happened to be in industries where the Defence Departments were concerned there was an easy solution of the problem, because the Defence Departments as purchasers of these goods were in the obvious position of being able to bring about necessary co-ordination. It was not in the slightest degree a suggestion that the lack of co-ordination was in particular among those concerns supplying goods to the Defence Departments. Therefore, it might have been just as well to have read the document before making a speech on it. The report also says:
Taking the key industries as a whole, we are definitely of opinion that the protection afforded to them has encouraged research and fostered development to an extent that would not otherwise have been possible.
That statement might have been quoted, but it was not quoted. Instead, a sentence torn from its context is taken from one paragraph and upon that is based a charge against these duties and the suggestion that they should be voted against. These duties had their origin in the mind of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). It was very largely his experience at the Ministry of Munitions that led to the introduction of these deliberate protective duties, and they were made Part I of the Safeguarding of Industries Act. The McKenna Duties were an application of protection during the War and were allowed to go on afterwards. These were the first deliberate protective duties and the list of goods then drawn up was the result of the experience of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs when he was at the Ministry of Munitions and later at the War Office.
What has been the result? Have these goods become dearer as the result of this protection, or cheaper? Anyone who has

read the report of 1926 of the committee presided over by Sir Burton Chadwick will remember that the general body of evidence was in regard to the remarkable cheapening of those products which we were producing, cheaper than when we were compelled to import them. In the meantime prices have fallen still further. We are buying things at less than prewar prices, and are liberating ourselves from the position which the War suddenly revealed that we were not producing many of these things at all. In regard to some of them the Departments I believe were engaged in smuggling them from Germany through Holland during the War, although I am unable to prove that statement. Surely, it is folly to suggest that these duties should not be continued. The right hon. Gentleman said that if we pass them we lose control for 10 years. That is not correct. One Parliament cannot bind a subsequent Parliament. Ten years is a declaration of intention, and when Parliament does that no succeeding Parliament lightly upsets it but, nevertheless, constitutionally Parliament does not lose control. If it were found, in the case of any particular commodity, that the producers were exploiting the community a Clause could be put into the Finance Bill modifying the duties, although Parliament would be reluctant to do so. It is not a contract; it is a unilateral intention of Parliament which any subsequent Parliament can vary, although I admit that Parliament would be reluctant to take such action.
Then with regard to research. What is research? It is one of those words which people use when they cannot think of anything else. In some factories you will find no research room at all; the drawing office is practically the research department, working in conjunction with the foundry and engineering works and with the management and productive departments. Their whole work is research; it is part of the general job. People with no scientific knowledge think of research as something separate and apart. It is going on continuously in every firm. We are always producing new designs and new models. Anyone with a knowledge of the engineering world knows that research is continuous. There are many kinds of research. There is the purely abstract form of research in the universities, which some people are perfectly satisfied is of


no use to anyone except as pure intellectual curiosity. But sometimes abstract research leads to more practical branches of research, and when you get into the workshops it very often happens that you get people who are following the developments which are taking place in the scientific world and who apply the results without themselves carrying out any research. I hope that people without any scientific knowledge will cease to think that by saying "scientific research" over and over again it solves some political issue.

6.35 p.m.

Mr. A. BEVAN: It may be that some hon. Members have been able to follow the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams), but I confess that I have not been able to do so. The last part of his speech was in flagrant contradiction to the middle part, where he poured scorn on what he called "abstract research." In the latter part of his speech he paid a high tribute to the abstract research which was being carried on. If the hon. Member for South Croydon had informed himself a little more he would have found that many of our industries, aviation in particular, have benefited enormously from research not carried out by industries producing aircraft but by Government research departments, while there are some which entirely owe their success to laboratory experiments carried on in the universities. The whole development of wireless is due to what the hon. Member calls "abstract research," from which the practical man is divorced. The hon. Member who talks so arrogantly of hon. Members speaking without any knowledge of scientific developments showed himself also woefully ignorant on the matter. If the hon. Member's ignorance is in proportion to his arrogance, he should be one of the most useful Members of the House. The hon. Member quoted a catalogue as a description, gave figures without any intelligibility and a large number of facts without any insight. Really the hon. Member ought to intervene after having informed himself not only about the facts but about the principles underlying the facts. He quoted from the report of the committee and suggested that the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) had misrepresented the position when he said that the lack of development was to be found in

those industries immediately connected with the Defence Services. I will read a sentence which the hon. Member for South Croydon omitted to read:
In particular we feel"—

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: Read the previous sentence.

Mr. BEVAN: I will read the whole:
We have noted, however, that in some industries there is a lack of co-ordination in research among the producing units and it appears to us that if there were closer co-operation between them in this respect, the money devoted to research could be spent more effectively by planning the work on a more comprehensive basis and making the results more widely applicable. In particular we feel that where firms are of necessity brought into close contact with the Defence Departments it should not be difficult to ensure better co-ordination.
In other words, Defence, which is supposed to be the particular pre-occupation of the Government at the moment, is presumably suffering because co-ordination is not as good as it should be. Does the hon. Member for South Croydon accept that interpretation?

Mr. WILLIAMS: The point at issue is this. The hon. Member for Chesterfield said that the difficulty had occurred in particular with the Defence Departments. The words "in particular" here do not imply that. They imply that there is an easy method of conciliation in those cases where the Defence Departments are concerned.

Mr. BEVAN: Hon. Members who can approach this piece of English language without the prejudices of the hon. Member for South Croydon will realise that the inference is clear. They say:
In particular we feel that where firms are of necessity brought into close contact with the Defence Departments it should not be difficult to ensure better co-ordination.
It is associated with the Defence Departments.

Mr. WILLIAMS: No.

Mr. BEVAN: I will read it again:
In particular we feel that where firms are of necessity brought into close contact with the Defence Departments it should not be difficult to ensure better co-ordination.
Co-ordination of what? Co-ordination in research, in the spending of the money provided for research. There is a clear inference which should be obvious to hon.


Members who regard themselves as the appointed custodians of national defence. The answer is that if we do not give these industries the guarantee of protection over long periods of years, they will not be able to spend money in capital development. That argument did not appeal to the Import Duties Advisory Committee in respect of an industry where millions of pounds of capital have to be spent—the steel industry. They specifically limited the first protection of the steel industry in, order to bring about an improvement in the industry. Does the hon. Member for South Croydon deny that?

Mr. WILLIAMS: I do not deny it, but the committee realised the blunder they had made because they abandoned the proposal.

Mr. BEVAN: They did it a second time, and it was only after the committee itself had appointed a committee and had made concrete proposals to the President of the Board of Trade and given what we considered to be inadequate guarantees in the matter, that the tariff was made permanent. On two occasions the committee limited the period of the tariff in the case of an, industry where millions of pounds have to be spent, because the Government felt it was necessary to keep a whip over the industry in order to guarantee that protection would not result in inefficiency and in the maintenance of obsolescent plant. We have had disclosures in the last two months as to the incompetence and frivolity with which the Government have regarded the Defence Services. A statement was made the other day by the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence on behalf of a Government which is supposed to be the special custodians of national defence, and much more competent to deal with the question than we on this side of the Committee. We were informed that if we were landed in hostilities we could not make sufficient shells. Therefore, hon. Members opposite cannot expect us to listen with complacency to them when they say that everything in the garden is lovely. As we are now overhauling our Defence Services, I submit that it is a good piece of business to say that we do not propose to continue this protection for more than a year, that we propose to examine what they are prepared to do to put themselves right and to answer the criticisms which have been made, and

that if they do put themselves right we will consider continuing the preference but not for 10 years, because that sense of security has in the past proved inadequate to spur them to their best efforts. If you are going to operate a tariff intelligently that is what you would do. The Committee will be well advised to ask the Government to reconsider this matter and bring in a new Clause limiting the period.
I remember listening to the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the tariffs were introduced in 1931. The Chancellor said that the Government regarded all those matters as experimental. They would take the line that in no circumstances would they permit inefficiency to grow up behind protection. They would not permit in any way the consumers of products to be mulcted by the producers of goods. They regarded the whole matter not from a doctrinaire angle but empirically, judging each case on its merits. It is not possible to do that if protection is to be handed out in slabs 10 years at a time. It can be done empirically only if there are short periods of protection and a reexamination at frequent intervals. I submit that the Government in this matter have not made out a case which ought to satisfy the Committee.
The hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Holmes) amazed me when he said we ought to continue these preferences for 10 years because the unemployment figures are falling. I suppose the hon. Members meant that protection for these industries is to have the credit for some of the rise in employment, but, I would point out that they were protected in 1931 when we had 3,000,000 of unemployed. The hon. Member did not make out his case that this tariff, which has been in existence for 15 years with varying fortunes, with unemployment up to 3,000,000 and then falling to 1,700,000 is responsible for the rise in employment. Of course, that is entirely irrelevant, as the hon. Member ought to realise. We are not now dealing with the question of tariffs in particular, but with the wisdom of the Government in handing out protection for a period of 10 years.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 228; Noes, 136.

Division No. 216.]
AYES.
[6.46 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Erskine Hill, A. G.
Nail, Sir J.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Flldes, Sir H.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P G.
Fox, Sir G. W. G.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.


Albery, I. J.
Furness, S. N.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Ganzoni, Sir J.
Palmer, G. E. H.


Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Penny, Sir G.


Apsley, Lord
Gledhill, G.
Petherick, M.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Gluckstein, L. H.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
Radford, E. A.


Atholl, Duchess of
Goodman, Col. A. W.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Gower, Sir R. V.
Ramsden, Sir E.


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Grimston. R. V.
Rayner, Major R. H.


Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)
Guest, Maj. Hon. O.(C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Blair, Sir R.
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Reid, W. Allen (Derby)


Blindell, Sir J.
Guy, J. C. M.
Remer, J. R.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Hannah, I. C.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Bossom, A. C.
Harbord, A.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Boulton, W. W.
Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. W.


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)


Boyce, H. Leslie
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Bras, Sir W.
Holmes, J. S.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Salmon, Sir I.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hopkinson, A.
Salt, E. W.


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Horsbrugh, Florence
Samuel, Sir A. M. (Farnham)


Bullock, Capt. M.
Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Selley, H. R.


Burghley, Lord
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Shakespeare, G. H.


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Burton, Col. H. W.
Hulbert, N. J.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Hunter, T.
Shute, Colonel Sir J. J


Cary, R. A.
Jackson, Sir H.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Cautley, Sir H. S.
Jarvis, Sir J. J.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Smithers, Sir W.


Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)
Jones, L. (Swansea, W.)
Somerset, T.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (Br.W.)
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Lamb, Sir J. O
Spender-Clay, Lt.-Cl. Rt. Hn. H. H.


Channon, H.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.
Spens, W. P.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Latham, Sir P.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'i'd)


Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Chorlton, A. E. L.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Storey, S.


Christle, J. A.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


Colfox. Major W. P.
Levy, T.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir G. P.
Lewis, O.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J.
Lindsay, K. M.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Lloyd, G. W.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Courthope, Col. Sir G. L.
Loftus, P. C.
Sutcliffe, H.


Craddock, Sir R. H.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Craven-Ellis, W.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Crossley, A. C.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Titchfield, Marquess of


Cruddas, Col. B.
MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Scot. U.)
Touche, G. C.


Davidson, Rt. Hon. Sir J. C. C.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Train, Sir J.


Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovil)
McKie, J. H.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Dawson, Sir p.
Maitland, A.
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


De Chair, S. S.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Turton, R. H.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Markham, S. F.
Wallace, Captain Euan


Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.
Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.
Ward, Irene (Wallsend)


Drewe, C.
Maxwell, S. A.
Warrender, Sir V.


Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Dugdale, Major T. L.
Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)
Wells, S. R.


Duncan, J. A. L.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Dunglass, Lord
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Dunne, P. R. R.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sh- A. T. (Hitchin)


Eales, J. F.
Moore, Lieut.-Col. T. C. R.
Windsor-Cllve, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Eastwood, J. F.
Moreing, A. C.
Withers, Sir J. J.


Eckersley, P. T.
Morris, J. P. (Salford, N.)
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester)



Entwistle, C. F.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Errington, E.
Munro, P.
Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward




and Dr. Morris-Jones.




NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Ammon, C. G.


Acland, R. T, D. (Barnstaple)
Adamson, W. M.
Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)


Adams, D. (Consett)
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.







Banfield, J. W.
Hopkin, D.
Pritt, D. N.


Barnes, A. J.
Jagger, J.
Riley, B.


Barr, J.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Ritson, J.


Bellenger, F.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Benson, G.
John, W.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Bevan, A.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Rothschild, J. A. de


Bromfield, W.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Rowson, G.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Jones, H. Haydn (Merloneth)
Salter, Dr. A.


Buchanan, G.
Jones, J. J. (Silvertown)
Seely, Sir H. M.


Burke, W. A.
Kelly, W. T.
Sexton, T. M.


Cape, T.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Shinwell, E.


Chater, D.
Kirkwood, D.
Short, A.


Cluse, W. S.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Silkin, L.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Lathan, G.
Silverman, S. S.


Compton. J.
Lawson, J. J.
Simpson, F. B.


Cove, W. G.
Leonard, W.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Leslie, J. R.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Daggar, G.
Logan, D. G.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Lunn, W.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H B. Lees- (K'ly)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Day, H.
McEntee, V. La T.
Sorensen, R. W.


Dobbie, W.
McGhee, H. G.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
McGovern, J.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
MacLaren, A.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Maclean, N.
Thorne, W.


Gallacher, W.
MacNeill, Weir, L.
Thurtle, E.


Gardner, B. W.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Tinker, J. J.


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Marklew, E.
Vlant. S. P.


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Marshall, F.
Walkden. A. G.


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Maxton, J.
Walker, J.


Grenfell, D. R.
Messer, F.
Watkins, F. C.


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Milner. Major J.
Watson, W. McL.


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Montague, F.
Westwood, J.


Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Ha'kn'y, S.)
White, H. Graham


Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Whiteley, W.


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Oliver, G. H.
Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)


Hardie, G. D.
Owen. Major G.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Harris, Sir P. A.
Paling, W.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Parker, J.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Parkinson, J. A.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Pethick- Lawrence, F. W.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Potts, J.



Holland, A.
Price, M. P.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Mathers and Mr. Groves.

6.57 p.m.

Mr. WHITE: I beg to move, in page 3, line 42, at the end, to insert:
not being activated and decolourising carbons, not of animal origin, in granular form.
The object of this Amendment is to exclude from the operation of the Bill all powdered carbons. The users of the various types of powdered carbons were surprised to find that these products, which are of great importance in the fat-refining industry, the sugar-refining industry and other industries where liquids have to be decolourised, were included in this Bill among the products which are to be covered by the new duties. Their inclusion was not recommended by the Board of Trade Committee, and the users were not consulted, nor had the representations which they made either to the Treasury or to the Board of Trade any further acknowledgment than a mere message to the effect that their communications had been received. I think it is very unfortunate that no opportunity was given to the representatives of the industries concerned to state their case and their reasons why these products

should not be included. If a case could be made out for the inclusion of any of these products, it would be for those used in the manufacture of gas-masks, but there is no reason that I can discover why the other products should be included. It may be indicated that there may be some administrative reason why they should be included, but if that is the only argument I would point out that administration exists for the benefit of industry, and that an industry is not there merely for the purpose of administration. It might be possible for the manufacturers to make application for the total exemption of these products from the duty, but it would be far better if they had not been included, or, if they had to be included, that the ordinary procedure of the Import Duties Advisory Committee should have been followed. That committee is charged with the impartial duty of taking a wide view in the national interest. It is possible to conceive a case in which the national interest would not be served by the complete exemption of these products but rather by a moderate duty. For these reasons I beg to move the Amendment.

7.2 p.m.

Dr. BURGIN: Carbon is a very common substance. It can be of animal or vegetable origin. The first point I wish to make is that carbon of animal origin is excluded from this Clause. Vegetable matter from which other substances are given off by heat will result in a residue of carbon being left. The carbons referred to in this Clause are of two kinds —activated carbon and decolorising carbon. For the purposes of the Committee I will inform them at once that activated carbon is a carbon substance where the porosity is increased in order that the maximum surface of carbon may be available. Activated carbon is used for taking out of a gaseous vapour the obnoxious part. Carbon which is treated in this way, either by having an energiser chemical added or by some other means to increase the surface in contact with which gas may come, is an activated carbon. A decolorising carbon is simply a filter. Granules of this carbon or the carbon in a block are inserted into a liquid and have the effect of taking out of the liquid every vestige of colour.
If the hon. Member will make inquiries he will find that the carbon used in the decolorising of sugar is of animal origin, and so is outside this Clause. The Committee is being asked to exclude from the recommendations of the committee carbon in granular form. The committee appointed by the Board of Trade recommended that there should be added to the list of trades coming under safeguarding the trades in the substances known as activated and de-colorising carbons. Why? Because at the moment in which there is a discussion of attack from the air gas masks are of primary importance. Carbon used for gas masks is an activated charcoal substance similar to that which I have here. As the hon. Member says, there is no substance for which a stronger case could be made out for the maintenance of a safeguarding duty than a substance connected with gas masks. Here is the substance—activated carbon in granular form such as would be used in gas masks.

Mr. WHITE: If the hon. Gentleman is contending that these carbons will be used in gas masks, we are at cross purposes. In this Amendment we have no wish to exclude that, nor have those for whom I am speaking. There is a mis-

understanding somewhere, and I should like to have it put right.

Dr. BURGIN: I am endeavouring to introduce my speech of resistance to the Amendment by a discussion on carbon generally, and I am pointing out that respirator charcoal for gas masks is, as a rule, in granular form. The purpose of the Amendment is to leave out from the operation of the safeguarding duty all carbon in granular form not of animal origin. The Key Industries Committee foresaw that it might be impossible to administer a key industry duty on granular activated carbon alone, and they indicated that it might be necessary to include granular decolorising carbon within the key industries duty as well, for the two kinds of carbon are difficult to distinguish. Owing to the difficulty of deciding where the granular form ceases and the powdered form begins it is desirable from the point of view of the Customs to include the powdered as well as the granular. Powdered activated carbon is produced along with the granular in crushing the lumps or pieces of carbon from the retorts where it is made. If the higher duty were imposed only on the granular above a certain specified size, and not on the powdered, that granular form might find itself insufficiently protected. The manufacture of activated and decolorising carbons is economically interwoven. That is an additional reason for treating the activated and decolorising carbons in the same way. So far as the lump form is concerned, it clearly would be undesirable that continental manufacture should be in a position to send activated carbon in lump form to this country merely to be ground up into granular for the manufacture of gas masks. It is absolutely essential that the manufacture of these carbons in all their stages and in all their forms should be made in this country, and the key industries duty imposed on the lump material as well as on the granular, on the granular as well as on the powdered, and on the powdered as on the lump. With that clear explanation the hon. Member may wish to withdraw his Amendment.

7.12 p.m.

Mr. BELLENGER: It is incumbent on me to express the gratitude of the Committee to the Parliamentary Secretary for his lucid explanation of this very difficult subject. At the beginning of this


discussion I had no idea what this Amendment was about, and until the Parliamentary Secretary produced that bottle I did not know what the substance was that we were discussing. If this substance is an important part of gas masks it should not be dealt with in the manner suggested to-night. It is so important a part of our national defence that it should not be in private manufacture.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Whether this Amendment is carried or not could not possibly affect that position.

Mr. BELLENGER: That is another illustration of my ignorance of the subject. I hope the hon. Member will not press this to a Division now that we have had the explanation of the Parliamentary Secretary; otherwise I should not know into which Lobby I ought to go.

7.14 p.m.

Sir PERCY HARRIS: My hon. Friend is still rather confused in spite of the scientific lecture of the Parliamentary Secretary. It shows the danger of the House of Commons trying to interfere with the ordinary channels of trade. We are agreed on the necessity of carbon for gas masks. It is one of the tragedies of the present age that we should have to make provision for emergencies and aerial warfare and the protection of the civil population. The point my hon. Friend is pressing is that in order to achieve that desirable end we should not needlessly interfere with commodities essential to industry. I understand that this decolourising carbon is not essential for industrial purposes and the only reason why it should be included is the convenience of the Customs officials. I am anxious to study the interests of the Customs officials and to make their difficult and responsible work as light as possible, but when we consider the ramifications of industry and how important it is, in an experiment of this kind, to interfere as little as possible with industry, it seems a very weak case to put up in

favour of including this category of carbon. As my hon. Friend has pointed out, the administration ought to be not the master but the servant of industry and I suggest that the Parliamentary Secretary would be well advised to snake this small concession at the request of a considerable industry which will, we are informed, be inconvenienced and handicapped—

Dr. BURGIN: Would the hon. Member be good enough to indicate which industry it is?

Sir P. HARRIS: There are sugar decolourisation, glucose decolourisation and other processes concerned and my hon. Friend would, I am sure, be willing to give full information on that matter. The hon. Gentleman's Department has already been approached by the industries concerned, but unfortunately owing to pressure of business or perhaps owing to the intervention of the Whitsuntide Recess, instead of receiving the usual courtesy and consideration all they received was a formal reply. Before the Department makes a final decision, I think the hon. Gentleman ought to undertake at any rate to receive representations as to why this kind of carbon should be excluded. It is well to remind this Committee and the Board of Trade that when this elaborate machinery was set up by Parliament, industries were given the right to go to a tribunal set up by Parliament but in the present case that right is excluded. Instead of being introduced through the ordinary channels this taxation is brought within the purview of the key industries legislation although it is admitted by the Parliamentary Secretary that the article concerned does no properly come within the four corners of that legislation. I hope the hon. Gentleman will be willing to make a concession in this respect.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 135; Noes, 214.

Division No. 217.]
AYES.
[7.20 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Barnes, A. J.
Cape, T.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Barr, J.
Chater, D.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Bellenger, F.
Cluse, W. S.


Adamson, W. M.
Benson, G.
Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Bevan, A.
Cocks, F. S.


Ammon, C. G.
Broad, F. A.
Compton, J.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Bromfield, W.
Cove, W. G.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford


Banfield, J. W.
Burke, W. A.
Daggar, G.




Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Kirby, B. V.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Kirkwood, D.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Rowson, G.


Day, H.
Lathan, G.
Salter, Dr. A.


Dobbie, W.
Lawson, J. J.
Sexton, T. M.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Leonard, W.
Shinwell, E.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Leslie, J. R.
Short, A.


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Logan, D. G.
Silkin, L.


Gallacher, W.
Lunn, W.
Silverman, S. S.


Gardner, B. W.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Simpson, F. B.


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
McEntee, V. La T.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
McGhee, H. G.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Grenfell, D. R.
MacLaren, A.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Maclean, N.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
MacNeill, Weir, L.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Mainwaring, W. H,
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth. N.)


Groves, T. E.
Marklew, E.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Marshall, F.
Thorne, W.


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Mathers, G.
Thurtle, E.


Hardie, G. D.
Maxton, J.
Tinker, J. J.


Harris, Sir P. A.
Messer, F.
Vlant, S. P.


Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Milner, Major J.
Walkden, A. G.


Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Montague, F,
Walker, J.


Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Ha'kn'y, S.)
Watkins, F. C.


Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Watson, W. McL.


Holland, A.
Oliver, G. H.
Westwood, J.


Hopkin, D,
Owen, Major G.
White, H. Graham


Jagger, J.
Paling, W.
Whiteley, W.


Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Parker, J.
Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)


Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Parkinson, J. A.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


John, W.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Potts, J.
Wilson. C. H. (Attercliffe)


Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Price, M. P.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Pritt, D. N.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Jones, J. J. (Silvertown)
Quibell, D. J. K.



Kelly, W. T.
Riley, B.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES —


Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Ritson, J.
Sir Hugh Seely and Mr. Acland




NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Craven-Ellis, W.
Hopkinson, A.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds. W.)
Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Howitt. Dr. A. B.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)


Albery, I. J.
Crossley, A. C.
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Cruddas, Col. B.
Hume, Sir G. H.


Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.
Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovil)
Hunter, T.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Dawson, Sir P.
Jackson. Sir H.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
De Chair, S. S.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)


Atholl, Duchess of
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Jones. L. (Swansea, W.)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Drewe, C.
Kirkpatrick, W. M.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)
Lamb, Sir,' J. Q.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Dugdale, Major T. L.
Lambert. Rt. Hon. G.


Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)
Duncan, J. A. L.
Latham. Sir P.


Blair, Sir R.
Dunglass, Lord
Law. Sir A. J. (High Peak)


Blaker, Sir R.
Eales, J. F.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Blindell, Sir J.
Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.


Boulton, W. W.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Levy, T.


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Entwistle, C. F.
Lewis, O.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Errington, E.
Lindsay, K. M.


Brass, Sir W.
Erskine Hill, A. G.
Liewellin, Lieut.-Co J. J.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Fildes, Sir H.
Lloyd, G. W.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Findlay, Sir E.
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.


Browne. A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Loftus, P. C.


Burghley, Lord
Furness, S. N.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Ganzoni, Sir J.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)


Burton, Col. H. W.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon Sir J.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Gledhill. G.
McCorquodale, M. S.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Gluckstein. L. H.
MacDonald. Rt. Hn. J. R. (Scot. U.)


Cary, R. A.
Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
Macdonald. Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Goodman, Col. A. W.
McKie, J. H.


Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)
Gower. Sir R. V.
Maitland, A.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.


Channon, H.
Gridley. Sir A. B.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Grimston, R. V.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Chorlton, A. E. L.
Guest, Maj. Hon. O.(C'mb'rw'll,N.W.)
Markham, S. F.


Christie, J. A.
Guy, J. C. M.
Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.


Colfox, Major W. P.
Hannah, I. C.
Maxwell, S. A.


Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Mayhew. Lt.-Col. J.


Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk. N.)
Harbord, A.
Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Haslam. H. C. (Horncastle)
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh,W
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton. E.)


Courthope, Col. Sir G, L.
Holmes, J. S.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Craddock, Sir R. H.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Moreing, A. C.







Morris, J. P. (Salford, N.)
Rowlands, G.
Strickland. Captain W. F.


Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H,
Runciman, Rt. Hon. W.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)


Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester)
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Sutcliffe, H.


Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Munro, P.
Salmon. Sir I.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H. H.
Salt, E. W.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Samuel, Sir A. M. (Farnham)
Touche, G. C,


O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Selley, H. R.
Train, Sir J.


O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Shakespeare, G. H.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G.
Shaw, Major p. S. (Wavertree)
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Fortar)
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Palmer, G. E. H.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Penny, Sir G.
Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.
Ward, Irene (Wallsend)


Petherick, M.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Warrender, Sir V.


Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Smithers, Sir W.
Wells, S. R.


Radford E. A.
Somerset T.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Ralkes, H. V. A. M.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Ramsden, Sir E.
Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Spender-Clay, Lt.-CI. Rt. Hn. H. H.
Withers, Sir J. J.


Rawson, Sir Cooper
Spens, W. P.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Rayner, Major R. H.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Wragg, H.


Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'I'd)
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Reid, W. Allen (Derby)
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)



Remer, J. R.
Storey, S.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.
Mr. James Stuart and Captain


Ropner, Colonel L.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)
Waterhouse.


Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

7.30 p.m.

Mr. BENSON: I beg to move, in page 4, line 3, to leave out paragraph (c).
The object of the Safeguarding of Industries Act was primarily to see that adequate supplies of particular articles were made in this country. Its object was not to give a practical monopoly to a small group of manufacturers, closely linked together in a ring, in an industry which is growing and expanding, but that is what paragraph (c) attempts to do. There might have been some argument 10 or 15 years ago in favour of including parts of wireless valves in the Schedule to the Act, but circumstances have no entirely changed and there is no justification whatever to-day for including those articles in the Schedule, or even for retaining wireless valves in it.
What are the changed conditions? I ask the Committee to consider the market which the valves manufacturer had when the Safeguarding of Industries Act was passed. The vast majority of wireless valves were then sold to the home constructor, to the man who made his own wireless set. In those days wireless sets, for the most part, were built out of component parts, which were bought separately. Except as components of the set, they had little or no relationship one with the other. One part was bought from one manufacturer and another part from another and, as far as the valves were concerned, it did not

matter whether you bought British or foreign valves—they were both bad.
That was the condition of the market when the Safeguarding of Industries Act was passed and applied to valves. In those days the cheap foreign valve was a temptation. High tension was not quite as well disciplined as it is now. When the home constructor, who was the main purchaser of wireless valves, could go and pick a foreign valve or an English valve, according to his purse or his taste, there might have been some argument for the protection of the English valve manufacturer, but circumstances have changed entirely, and two very important factors have entered in. First of all, there is the development of the wireless set itself. In the old days one used to spend laborious nights trying to get America on one valve. Nowadays the wireless receiving set is so complicated that it is practically outside the scope of the ordinary home constructor, who used to be the main purchaser of valves. The development of the all-mains superheterodyne has made home construction an impossibility.
Another factor is that the manufacturers of wireless sets, who are mainly valve manufacturers also, have introduced mass production into their set manufacture, and you can to-day purchase the wireless set complete, in a handsome mahogany case or whatever case you may choose, at about half the price at which you can buy the individual components of the set. The result is that the majority of sets now are sold complete with valves, and there are only


about half-a-dozen different important manufacturers. The result is that the manufacturer of valves, who is very largely also the set manufacturer, has practically a monopoly of the market to-day. Because of the development which I have outlined, he does not require protection for his valves, because, selling the set, he sells the valves, and so he has a guaranteed market.
A little earlier in the evening the Minister stated that there had been no undue prices charged. I do not think that that applies to wireless valves. It is true that the price of valves has gone down. For instance, to compare one type of valve with a similar, though not quite identical, type, the old B.T.H. B4, for which you paid 22s. 6d., with a modern super-power valve, you pay 15s. to 17s. 6d. That is roughly the price that you pay for an English valve, but that is wildly above the cost of manufacture. There is a very close monopoly. The Valve Manufacturers' Association controls prices. They are so closely linked up that there is practically no competition now, except in advertisement. There is an interchange of inventions. You can buy a particular valve or a particular set, and it does not matter to which valve manufacturer you go, it is an identical valve so far as characteristics are concerned. There is no competition now between the small, close ring of valve manufacturers in this country, except a competition of advertisements, and although they may have reduced prices, as undoubtedly they have, there is still a very large margin by which they could reduce them still further. You pay about 15s. for a super-power valve, and you can buy a foreign valve which has paid 33⅓ per cent duty at half the price. If the foreign manufacturer can jump the 33⅓ per cent. tariff and sell his article at half the price—and a good article too—that the English valve ring are charging, it is no use telling this Committee that prices are not excessive.
The proposal to include parts of wireless valves is an attempt to keep down competition to a bare minimum. What else is it for? It is an attempt to exclude parts of valves which are made up in this country. The vast majority of valves sold in this country are of British manufacture, and there is not a very large number of foreign valves sold. The English manufacturers have a practical

monopoly of the market, and they are charging monopoly prices. For this reason we propose to oppose this little bit of added protection that is being given to them, because we can find no justification for it whatsoever.

7.37 p.m.

Mr. WHITE: I wish to support the Amendment, and I must say that I am rather puzzled to know what arguments my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will bring forward to justify the inclusion of parts of wireless valves and similar apparatus in the Key Industries Duty. My hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) said that the price of valves was out of all relation to the cost of manufacture. It is a fact which I have often heard stated that there are valves being sold in this country at 15s. and 17s. 6d., the cost of which to manufacture is half-a-crown. You can never predict what an hon. Member of this House is going to say, but I am confident that the Parliamentary Secretary will not get up and say from that Box that an article which costs half-a-crown to manufacture, and which can be sold, and is being sold in large quantities, at from 15s. to 17s. 6d., requires protection. I cannot anticipate that that is what he will say. Neither will he tell us that the exclusion of these articles is required on the ground of national defence, because we know that the British manufactures of these particular parts and of the valves themselves are equal to any which can be produced anywhere. There is no excuse for the prices which are being charged for these valves.
Can my hon. Friend tell the Committee whether he has consulted with those concerned to see that the wireless industry is being spread and that an effort is being made by the Board of Education to see that wireless is introduced into the schools, where it can be a powerful adjunct to the spoken word? One of the difficulties in regard to spreading the use of wireless reception in the schools is the cost of the sets. The local authorities will not grant the necessary money, and what happens in many cases is that the head teacher, being interested in the matter and thinking it of importance to have the advantages of science in his school, and that his teachers should have the aid of wireless sets, goes among his friends, and by private effort or by hold-


ing some sort of sale of work he gets a set installed. It has been suggested that the British Broadcasting Corporation should produce a standard set for use in schools. I do not think it is in the public interest that these articles should be included in this Schedule of key industries. I think, on the contrary, that it is in the public interest that this paragraph should be withdrawn until the matter has been further considered.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield said something about competition. There is a British Valve Manufacturers Association. I do not know whether or not they control prices—I have no information on the point—but it is said that they exchange research ideas and information and that they act as a sort of mutual assistance club, but I should be surprised if I were told that they did not take into consideration the question of the prices to be charged.

Mr. BENSON: Prices for valves of identical characteristics are the same for all manufacturers.

Mr. WHITE: I see that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education is in his seat, and I shall be glad to know whether he has been consulted with regard to this duty, the effect of which will be to keep up the cost of wireless apparatus and to make it more difficult to extend the work of setting up wireless reception in the schools, which is a matter of great concern to my right hon. Friend's Department.

7.42 p.m.

Dr. BURGIN: We listened to an extremely interesting speech by the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson), and, as an amateur wireless technician, I greatly enjoyed his account of the early days of trials with a screw-driver and a piece of wood, when, with the assembled parts, we tried to get America on one valve; they were enough to tax the patience of Job. The hon. Member seemed to think that conditions had all changed for the improvement of the market of the wireless valve manufacturer, but I want to suggest that they have changed in another degree. I suggest that they have made the wireless valve an absolute essential to the defence of this country. One of the greatest factors in defence is communication, and one of the most efficient

methods of communication in modern times is the use of every type of wireless valve.
The hon. Member for Birkenhead, East (Mr. White) followed the hon. Member for Chesterfield, and talked as if this were a mere economic proposal, as if all that we had to consider was the question of price and whether valve manufacturers were selling their commodities at proper competitive prices. Both hon. Members seemed to suggest that the British manufacturers were selling all British valves. I do not know whether it will surprise the Committee to know that there is a widespread importation of parts in order that those parts may be assembled here—parts bought from abroad. My concern, as the Government spokesman, is to call the attention of the Committee to the essential fact that valve parts should be manufactured in Great Britain, and I want by means of this inducement of the inclusion of parts in the Safeguarding Duties to see that every part of a valve is made in this country, so that we are not caught napping in times of emergency. With that object in view, these matters of price, although to be taken into account and although matters of relevance, are trifling compared with the essential importance of the fact that no part of a wireless valve should not be manufactured in this country. The two hon. Members who addressed the Committee spoke as if the wireless valve and the parts of the valve ought to be treated on a different footing. What is the logic of treating all the parts that go to make up the whole on a different basis?

Mr. BENSON: I suggested treating them on an equal footing and bringing the valve outside the scope of the key industries duties.

Dr. BURGIN: I can deal only with the Amendment, which will have the effect of leaving the whole valve subject to safeguarding duties and leaving the parts not subject to those duties. I do not think that that is a proposition that will commend itself to the Committee. To have the entire manufactured article subject to a high duty and the parts allowed to be imported on a lower duty in order that they can be assembled here will not commend itself to anybody. The Committee appointed by the President of the Board of Trade which looked into this


matter found that there was a, wide-scale practice of importing parts from abroad. I will not say whether it is laziness or what the reason is, but it is a fact that large numbers of parts of valves are imported by British manufacturers from foreign sources and that they are then made up into British valves. I want to see that the duty on the whole valve and on the parts is the same. That is the principle we have consistently adopted, namely, that the whole and the parts that make up the whole should be put on a similar basis.
I would call the attention of the Committee to one other point. The hon. Member for Chesterfield was right in stating that, whereas in the old days the real expense was the valve, you can nowadays purchase a complete set standardised at less than you would pay for the individual valve and resistances that go to make up the entire set. There is, therefore, nothing in the argument that the duties on the parts of the valve will increase the price of the set. It will do nothing of the kind. I do not agree with the descriptions that have been given of this small ring. Hon. Members might inquire who is outside the ring and who is in it, and their relative numbers. The price of a wireless set is within the range of almost anybody to-day. By all means let the methods of manufacture be proved, by all means bring down the prices and do anything that service can do to benefit the general user, but with the valve bearing a duty, do not tell me that it would increase the price of the set if a similar duty were put on the parts of the valve. For these reasons I ask the Committee to resist the Amendment which seeks to leave the entire valve covered by a duty, but the parts of it without a duty.

Mr. WHITE: May I raise a further point? The Committee gathers that practically the only reason for including the parts of wireless valves under the key industries duties is that they are important for military reasons. These things are now being classed practically as munitions. That being the case, I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he will say that the Committee which is considering the question of profits on munitions will have regard to the fact that valves which cost 2s. 6d. to manufacture are being sold for 17s. 6d.

7.50 p.m.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: As the Parliamentary Secretary is not making any response to the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White), there are one or two other things that should be said about this question. I was interested in the last part of the statement of the Parliamentary Secretary in which he said in effect that there was effective competition in this industry. I subscribe at once to the statement of my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) that to-day the wireless receiving set is very largely manufactured by those who are also valve makers. The movement with which I am connected is not without some experience in the matter. We have seen exactly what happens once the process to which my hon. Friend referred becomes established; you have actually set up a ring in regard both to the manufacture of the valve and to the manufacture of the set. The 1,100 or 1,200 co-operative societies with which I am usually accused of having some connection were subject to a complete boycott by the ring dealing with wireless sets, and they were forced in self-defence to go into the production of sets themselves. They have, therefore, now to collect the various parts for building the sets.
It is really burking the whole issue before the Committee to say that the question of price is irrelevant. It ignores the point made by the hon. Member for East Birkenhead in regard to schools. It ignores, too, the case we have always put up on these benches that the poorest householder is as entitled as those who are better off to have a reasonably priced set, and to have access to the stations that are required to be picked up with more than one valve. The Parliamentary Secretary has made no answer to the objections that have been made as to the enormous margin which exists between the cost of the manufacture of valves and their list price. I do not know whether that is an admission—

Dr. BURGIN: I made no admission whatever that any valve selling at 17s. 6d. costs in labour or material as little as 2s. 6d. The whole idea is quite fantastic.

Mr. ALEXANDER: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us the price of manufacture?

Dr. BURGIN: I will tell the Committee, what is the fact, that in fixing the


cost price of a set the actual cost price of the valve is taken.

Mr. ALEXANDER: I admire the cleverness of the answer, but I am not any more informed in trying to get at what the hon. Member for East Birkenhead was asking. The cost price of the valve has been compared with the selling price of the valve, but the last answer made by the Parliamentary Secretary was that the cost price of the valve is that which is charged in the cost of the set. That is an entirely different matter. Let me quote from the report of the Ullswater Committee on Broadcasting, on which the hon. Member for East Birkenhead and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition were members:
It is not easy to make an exact comparison between the prices of receiving sets in one country and in another, but it seems fair to say that the average price for a set of medium quality in this country is somewhat high.
They were fairly modest in the way they put it. They go on to make a contrast:
We are informed that in Germany, by co-operation between the broadcasting authority and the wireless trade, a standardised receiver has been designed and is sold at a low fixed price, and that this procedure has enabled a larger proportion of the population to become listeners.
In relation to the point that the price is somewhat high, I would like to have the answer of the Parliamentary Secretary.

7.55 p.m.

Dr. BURGIN: I am most anxious to give the Committee all the information in my possession and to deal with all the arguments put forward. I can only deal with one argument at a time. I want to make the point that there is no connection between the list price of a valve and the price at which that valve is sold to the maker of the set. Secondly, I wish to make the point that the price of the receiving set is fixed by the manufacturer at a figure which includes the cost price to the manufacturer of the valve, but not the list price. Consequently, nothing that I am proposing in this part of the Finance Bill affects the price of the set. Those who are suggesting that the parts of the valve should be excluded have sought to adduce the argument that I am standing in the way of broadcasting in schools and of the millions of people who would like to be listening with a three-valve set when they

have not that facility now. I want to clear all that away by saying that it is a delusion. The competition between valve manufacturers to supply valves to makers of sets is extremely keen, and the price at which valves are sold by manufacturers to the makers of sets includes a very small percentage of profit. Valve manufacturers who manufacture their own wireless sets include the cost price of the valves, whatever that cost may be, in the cost of the set. There is no justification for the suggestion that the cost of the valve results in an undue increase in the price of the receiving set. I have put the suggestion of the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White) to valve manufacturers that valves listed at 17s. 6d. are produced at 2s. 6d., and the manufacturers emphatically deny it.

7.58 p.m.

Mr. ALEXANDER: We are still without information of what is the cost of the valve to the manufacturer. The Parliamentary Secretary has been most careful in his presentation of the case, but he has been lacking in the information which has been specifically asked for. I am even more concerned when I remember the Minority Report of the Ullswater Committee, which was signed by Lord Elton, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies). In this they said:
There are strong trade organisations although there is Still a considerable amount of competition. Evidence has been given that there is a combination in the manufacture of valves"—
they only admit the competition in the case of the manufacture of sets—
which keep prices unnecessarily high. There are obviously further possibilities of the formation of other associations.
In the light of that carefully considered finding of three members of the committee, two of whom are respected Members of this House, and one of whom is a respected Member of the other place, who had an opportunity of observing the demeanour of the witnesses who came before them, I say that the case that has been put up by my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment is, failing a further answer from the Parliamentary Secretary, adequately proved. With regard to the question whether you can logically leave out of taxation the parts of a wireless valve when you are taxing


the whole valve, I would, for my part, remove the tax on the valve itself. When it comes to the question of defence, who can say in the light of the evidence given before the Ullswater Committee as to the actual experience in production of the valve manufacturers that, we are not already adequately equipped for the production of valves for war purposes? I do not believe there is the slightest doubt that that is the case.
With regard to price, the Parliamentary Secretary says that there are still a number of manufacturers of wireless valves who from some cause or other—I think he suggested laziness—are using imported foreign parts for the manufacture of their valves. If that is so can there be any possible ground for saying that a tax on those parts will not raise the price of the valves? How can he argue that? In view of his well known championship of the principles of Free Trade I should be delighted if we could have an explanation from him on that point. If firms are manufacturing valves with imported parts I should like to know how a duty of 33⅓ per cent. on those parts is going to lower prices?

Dr. BURGIN: I rarely rise to a bait that is displayed before me quite so obviously, and before I reply may I correct the right hon. Gentleman in a matter of detail? These parts are already subjected to a duty of 20 per cent. and all we are talking about is the rise from 20 to 33⅓ per cent. One part of his argument falls, on whichever foot he stands. If his argument is that the price which the valve maker receives is so great that he is already getting an exorbitant profit, obviously to increase the duty by 13⅓ per cent. will not do anything at all. If, on the other hand, the manufacturer is only getting a fair price, then the additional 13⅓ per cent. on the imported parts, if he continues to use them, will undoubtedly slightly raise the price. But the whole idea of including the parts in this legis-

lation is to make him manufacture the parts here, in which case the result will be that he will, we hope, sell the whole article at, if anything, a slightly lower price.

Mr. ALEXANDER: Let us see where that reply takes us. If the manufacturer is not making a very large profit, the extra tax of 13⅓ per cent. may possibly raise the price a little, but if, as we charge him with doing, he is making a large profit already, it will not raise the price. At any rate, the duty will help to arrest a reasonable and urgently needed decline in prices. I suggest that that is the real object of the duty. There are other people in the field, and we know that the manufacturers of wireless valves and of electric lamps in this country are not merely in a national but in a Continental combine. We know that in Sweden the organisations of such manufactures of co-operative origin have been able to stand up against the combine. We know that the people here who are advocating further protection by this duty do not want the possibility of such competition here. That is the real position. We say the proper line to be taken, especially if the question of defence is involved, is the line taken in the minority report of the Ullswater Committee. We say that if defence is involved, in addition to the great and urgently-required public service of broadcasting, there ought to be a national basis of ownership for this industry, rather than that it should be a question of giving high protection, over long, stabilised periods, to combines of a monopoly character which are already making undue profits at the expense of the community. I hope that we shall get a wide support for that point of view in the Lobby to-night.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 197; Noes, 133.

Division No. 218.]
AYES.
[8.3 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Bernays, R. H.
Burgin, Dr. E. L.


Albery, I. J.
Blair, Sir R.
Burton, Col. H. W.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Blaker, Sir R.
Campbell, Sir E. T.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Blindell, Sir J.
Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)


Atholl, Duchess of
Boulton, W. W.
Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Brass, Sir W.
Channon, H.


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)




Chorlton, A. E. L.
Hore-Bellsha, Rt. Hon. L.
Ramsden, Sir E.


Christie, J. A.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Rayner, Major R. H.


Colfox, Major W. P.
Hulbert, N. J.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Reid, W. Allen (Derby)


Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Hunter, T.
Remer, J. R.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Joel, D. J. B.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh. W.)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Ropner. Colonel L.


Courthope, Col. Sir G. L.
Jones, L. (Swansea, W.)
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Craddock, Sir R. H.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Rowlands, G.


Craven-Ellis, W.
Kirkpatrick, W. M.
Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Groom-Johnson, R. p.
Latham, Sir P.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Crossley, A. C.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Salmon, Sir I.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Levy, T.
Salt, E. W.


Cruddas, Col. B.
Lewis, O.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.


Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovil)
Lindsay, K. M.
Selley, H. R.


Dawson, Sir P.
Liewellin, Lieut.-Col J. J.
Shakespeare, G. H.


De Chair, S. S.
Lloyd, G. W.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Loftus, P. C.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Smithers, Sir W.


Drewe, C.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Spens, W. P.


Duggan, H. J.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Duncan, J. A. L..
MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Scot. U.)
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Dunglass, Lord
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Storey, S.


Dunne, P. R. R.
McKie, J. H.
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


Eales, J. F.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Eckersley, P. T.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D, R.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Markham, S. F.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)


Errington, E.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Erskine, Hill, A. G.
Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Fildes, Sir H.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Sutcliffe, H.


Findlay, Sir E.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Tasker, Sir R. l.


Fleming, E. L.
Moreing, A. C.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Morris, J. P. (Salford, N.)
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Furness, S. N.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H.
Touche, G. C.


Gibson, C. G.
Morrison. G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Train, Sir J.


Gledhill, G.
Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester)
Turton, R. H.


Gluckstein, L. H.
Nall, Sir J.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Goodman, Col. A. W.
Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H. H.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Grattan-Doyie, Sir N.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Ward, Irene (Wallsend)


Gridiey, Sir A. B.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Warrender, Sir V.


Grimston, R. V.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Wells, S. R.


Guy, J. C. M.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G,
Wlckham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Hannah, l. C.
Orr-Ewing, l. L.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Palmer, G. E. H.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Harbord, A.
Penny, Sir G.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Haslam, H. C. (Horncastie)
Perkins, W. R. D.
Withers, Sir J. J.


Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Petherick, M.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Pilkington, R.
Wragg, H.


Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.



Hoimes, J. S.
Radford, E. A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—


Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Commander Southby and Captain


Hopkinson, A.
Ramsbotham, H.
Waterhouse.




NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Compton, J.
Harris, Sir P. A.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Cove, W. G.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Henderson,. J. (Ardwick)


Adamson, W. M.
Daggar, G.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Dalton, H.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)


Ammon, C. G.
Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Holland, A.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Davles, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Hopkin, D.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Jagger, J.


Banfield, J. W.
Day, H.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)


Barnes, A. J.
Dobbie, W.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)


Barr, J.
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
John, W.


Batey, J.
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.


Bellenger, F.
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)


Benson, G.
Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)


Bevan, A.
Gallacher, W.
Kelly, W. T.


Broad, F. A.
Gardner, B. W.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.


Bromfield, W.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Kirby, B. V.


Brooke, W.
Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Kirkwood, D.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Grenfell, D. R.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.


Burke, W. A.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Lathan, G.


Cape, T.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Lawson, J. J.


Chater, D.
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Leonard, W.


Cluse, W. S.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Leslie, J. R.


Clynes, Rt, Hon. J. R.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Logan, D. G.


Cocks, F. S.
Hardie, G. D,
Lunn, W.







Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Potts, J.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


McGhee, H. G.
Price, M. P.
Thorne, W.


MacLaren, A.
Pritt, D. N.
Thurtle, E.


Maclean, N.
Quibell, D. J. K.
Tinker, J. J.


Mainwaring, W. H.
Riley, B.
Viant, S. P.


Mander, G. le M.
Ritson, J.
Walkden, A. G.


Markiew, E.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
Walker, J.


Marshall, F.
Rowson, G.
Watkins, F. C.


Maxton, J.
Salter, Dr. A.
Watson, W. McL.


Messer, F.
Seely, Sir H. M.
Westwood, J.


Milner, Major J.
Sexton, T. M.
White, H. Graham


Montague, F
Shinwell, E.
Whiteley, W.


Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Ha'kn'y, S.)
short, A.
Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)


Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Silverman, S. S.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Oliver, G. H.
Simpson, F. B.
Williams, T. (Don Vailey)


Owen, Major G.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Paling, W.
Smith, E. (Stoke)
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Parker, j.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Parkinson, J. A.
Smith, T. (Normanton)



Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Mathers and Mr. Groves.

8.15 p.m.

THURTLE: I beg to move, in page 5, line 7, after "time," to insert "or at a reasonable price."
The object of the Amendment is to bring in the factor of price as well as the factors of time and abundance of quantity. The Clause is designed to protect the importer against the possibility that the article protected will not be available within a reasonable time or in sufficient quantity. While those two provisions are probably sound and reasonable, we think a third provision should be added, and that the importer should be safeguarded in the matter of price. It is unreasonable that he should be assured that there is an abundant supply only to find that it is obtainable only at an exorbitant price. There should be an assurance that the importer can obtain what he wants, if it is produced in this country, at a reasonable price. We are asking for a small and justifiable concession, and I hope that we shall get it. The governing word of my Amendment is "reasonable," and we think that the Amendment is a very reasonable suggestion. I, as the Member moving it, am a reasonable Member, and we appeal to the Government to accept it as a reasonable proposition.

8.18 p.m.

Mr. GEORGE GRIFFITHS: I beg to second this Amendment. I do so because I have felt the effects of such an omission in the past. It is said that a fellow feeling makes us wondrous kind. If hon. Members will look at the Clause, they will see these words:
If the Board of Trade are satisfied, on the application of the importer of any consignment of instruments or apparatus imported after the passing of this Act…

I happen to know that such things as hypodermic) needles are imported into this country, and that there is a tax on them, and that, as a result of the tax, people are suffering for want of the needles because they have not the wherewithal to pay the additional tax. It is an unreasonable tax. Through those hypodermic needles people are injected day by day with insulin, and a tax of 33⅓ per cent, has been put upon them. For the sake of those poor diabetic people, those needles ought to be sold at a reasonable price. I can afford to pay for needles now, but before I came to this House, through 10 months I drew 110 days' unemployment benefit; that was 3s. 10½d. a shift for the wife and me, and that was all my income. I was lucky in those days to be able to get my needles for nothing, through Lloyd George and the public health, but I knew people who, when they went to Boot's Cash Chemists, where they once used to get a needle for 4½d., had to pay 6d. for it. That is not something from a book; that is practical knowledge, and that is why I am seconding the Amendment that the needles should he sold at a reasonable price.
There are some things made in foreign parts—I do not like to think this, mark you, but we have to face facts—which are better than the British-made articles. Nor do I like to make this statement, but we must face facts, and it is that the German needle to me now, as I am putting it in twice a day, feels a lot better when I get it in my thigh, two and a half inches, and I can get the German needle in quicker than an English needle. That is something which I know every day of my life. I feel that the tax on the needles for those poor


people is too much. There are a lot of them who are not getting insulin, needles, iodine and wadding free, because they are outside the Act. Some 400 of them are outside the Act of 1935, which was passed in the last Parliament, and they have to buy their own tackle, their insulin and often their own needles, and their own stuff. I do not want to go on taxing them. Tomatoes are not in this Clause, nor is lettuce and that kind of stuff, but I am asking the Government that they will make at least this change, for the sake of those people, some of whom are living a dying death, as you might say, and putting the matter in round figures, as it were. I beg the Ministers concerned, with their hearts and their heads, to accept this Amendment that there should be a reasonable price as well as a reasonable tax.

8.24 p.m.

Dr. BURGIN: We have listened to a very moving appeal, and I wish it were within my power to accede to the request made. I am not sure that what the hon. Member asked for in seconding the Amendment and what was asked for by the Mover cover the same ground. I have every sympathy with the diabetic and those who have to have recourse to the treatment which has been so graphically and movingly described, but I am not sure whether this is the place to provide the relief which is asked for, arid whether the Amendment would be the appropriate method of doing it. I hope some method can be found of doing what is desired by the hon. Member who seconded the Amendment, but the Committee must realise that this Clause is not intended to cover the case which was put by the Seconder.
Certain extremely costly, highly technical precision instruments have been found by experience to be needed, sometimes in laboratories, sometimes in research associations, sometimes in industry, and can, perhaps, only be procured by loan; there may be only one or two, or a small number, in existence in the world. Without some such Clause as this, they could not be brought into the country at all except on payment of a duty, and, by the machinery, the duty must be on their cost—on their selling price. This Sub-section, therefore, is an enabling Sub-section, to enable a high-priced scientific instrument of that kind

to be brought into this country provided that the Board of Trade are satisfied on certain points. The importer has to prove that the consignment is wanted for his own use, and that goods similar to the article imported are not for the time being being made, or likely within a reasonable time to be made, within His Majesty's Dominions.
The question of price is another consideration altogether. If a scientific instrument is not made here, and one is to be ordered, the price at which that one can be made will be out of all proportion to the price at which the article is being imported from the country where it already exists. The price level is maintained by the fact that the article can always be imported, without the permission of the Board of Trade, on payment of the duty. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment said that it was a reasonable Amendment, and that he moved it as a reasonable man in a reasonable way. All that is quite true, but what is the reasonable price between the cost of the article and the cost plus 33⅓ per cent.? Where does the reasonableness come in?

Mr. THURTLE: May I point out to the hon. Gentleman that, in the paragraph which I am seeking to amend, the term "reasonable" is used? It speaks of "a reasonable time." There is no definition of the word "reasonable" in the Bill, but we presume that it can be defined in reasonable terms. It is on the same basis that I am suggesting that there should be a reasonable price.

Dr. BURGIN: I am much obliged to the hon. Member; I quite appreciate his point, which, so far as it goes, is a perfect argument; but I am pointing out that here the ceiling is merely the duty—the article can be obtained by paying the duty, without the permission of the Board of Trade. The hon. Member is seeking to provide that it should be possible to obtain the article without paying the duty of 33⅓ per cent., provided that it can be obtained in this country at some price below its cost plus 33⅓ per cent. I am asking him how he thinks that that can be secured? I venture to think that the Committee, while feeling great sympathy with the argument about the hypodermic needle, will accept my assurance that the object of the Subsection is to cover high-priced scientific


instruments of a very different character, and to enable their importation in circumstances where the price would have no direct relevance, and where the price figure is controlled by the fact that the article could be imported by paying the duty of 33⅓ per cent.

8.31 p.m.

Sir FRANCIS ACLAND: I think the Parliamentary Secretary has made a good case for the part of the Clause which we are discussing, and which, so far as it goes, makes possible a concession to importers; but I was glad that he was impressed, as we all were, by the case made out by the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths), and, as one who also uses a hypodermic needle, sometimes eight or 10 times a day—not for diabetes but for asthma—I happen to have had a fairly long experience of these instruments, one of which I have in my hand at the moment. Until only a few months ago one could not get a really first-rate British hypodermic needle made of rust-less steel. That makes all the difference in the use of them, because, if you can avoid blunting their very delicate tips—which you cannot always do, having to use them in the rough and tumble of

ordinary life—you can use the same rust-less needle for weeks, but if it is not rustless the expense to which one is put for fresh needles is quite considerable.

I happened to make some inquiries from dental friends and associates of mine, and I have no doubt whatever that now there are two sorts of absolutely first-rate British-made hypodermic needles, and that the makers of them would be the last people to want to be protected in the matter of price by high duties against foreign needles. I believe that we are beating—indeed, that we have beaten—the foreign needle on merits, and I should be very glad to give my hon. Friend some of the English needles which I now get. But their price is 6d., and I cannot believe that the makers of them, having now succeeded in their enterprise of making first-class goods, depend upon a high protection against the foreign article. I hope very much, therefore, that the Minister will pursue his researches in this matter, and will see if he can give some relief.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 131; Noes, 192.

Division No. 219.]
AYES.
[8.35 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)


Acland, R. T, D. (Barnstaple)
Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
McGhee, H. G.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Gallacher, W.
MacLaren, A.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Gardner, B. W.
Maclean, N.


Adamson, W. M.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Marklew, E.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Marshall, F.


Ammon, C. G.
Grenfell, D. R.
Mathers, G.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Maxton. J.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Messer, F.


Banfield, J. W.
Griffiths, J. (Lianelly)
Milner, Major J.


Barnes, A. J.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Montague. F.


Barr, j
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Ha'kn'y. S.)


Batey, J.
Hardie. G. D.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Bellenger. F.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Oliver, G. H.


Benson, G.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Owen, Major G.


Bevan, A.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Paling, W.


Broad, F. A.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Parker, J.


Bromfield, W.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Parkinson, J. A.


Brooke, W.
Holland, A.
Potrick-Lawrence, F. W.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Hopkin, D.
Potts. J.


Buchanan, G.
Jagger, J.
Price. M. P.


Burke, W. A.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Pritt, D. N.


Cape, T.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Chater, D.
John, W.
Riley, B.


Cluse, W. S.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Ritson, J.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Cocks, F. S.
Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Rowson, G.


Compton, J.
Kelly, W. T.
Sailer, Dr. A.


Cove, W. G.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Seeiy, Sir H. M.


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Kirby, B. V.
Sexton, T. M.


Daggar, G.
Kirkwood, D.
Shinwell, E.


Dalton, H.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Short, A.


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Lathan, G.
Silverman, S. S.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lawson, J. J.
Simpson, F. B.


Day, H.
Leonard, W.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Dobble, W.
Leslie, J. R.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Logan, D. G.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedweilty)
Lunn, W.
Stephen, C.




Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)
Walker, J.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Watkins, F. C.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Thorne, W.
Watson, W. McL.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Thurtle, E.
Westwood, J.



Tinker, J. J.
White, H. Graham
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Viant, S. P.
Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Groves.


Walkden, A. G.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)





NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Perkins, W. R. D.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Grimston, R. V.
Petherick, M.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Guy, J. C. M.
Pilkington, R.


Albery, I. J.
Hanbury, Sir C.
Ponsonby, Col. C, E.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Hannah, I. C.
Radford, E. A.


Apsley, Lord
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Harbord, A.
Ramsbotham, H.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)
Ramsden, Sir E.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Rayner, Major R. H.


Balfour, Capt. H. H.(Isle of Thanet)
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Herbert, Captain S. (Abbey)
Reid, W. Allen (Derby)


Blair, Sir R.
Holmes, J. S.
Remer, J. R.


Blaker, sir R.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Blindell, Sir J.
Hopkinson, A.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Boulton, W. W.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Rowlands, G.


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Russell, A. west (Tynemouth)


Brass, Sir W.
Hulbert, N. J
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Hunter, T.
Salmon, Sir I.


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Jarvis, Sir J. J.
Salt, E. W.


Burton, Col. H. W.
Joel, D. J. B.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Selley, H. R.


Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)
Jones, L. (Swansea, W.)
Shakespeare, G. H.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Channon, H.
Kirkpatrick, W. M.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Chorlton, A. E. L.
Lamb, Sir J. Q
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Christie, J. A.
Latham, Sir P.
Smithers, Sir W.


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Lawson, J. J.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Colfox, Major W. p.
Lees-Jones, J.
Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.


Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk N.)
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Levy, T.
Spens, W. P.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Lewis, O.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Courthope, Col. Sir G. L.
Lindsay, K. M.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Craddock, Sir R. H.
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Storey, S.


Craven-Ellis, W.
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Loftus, P. C.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Crossley, A. C.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Crowder, J. F. E.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Cruddas, Col. B.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovil)
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Sutcliffe, H.


Dawson, Sir P.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


De Chair, S. S.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Markham, S. F.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Touche, G. C.


Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.
Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Drewe, C.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Tufneil, Lieut.-Com. R. L,


Duggan, H. J.
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Turton, R. H.


Duncan, J. A. L.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Walker-Smith, sir J.


Dunglass, Lord
Moreing, A. C.
Ward, Irene (Walisend)


Dunne, P. R. R.
Morgan, R. H.
Warrender, Sir V.


Eales, J. F.
Morris, J. P. (Salford, N.)
Wells, S. R.


Eckersiey, P. T.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.,


Errington, E.
Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Fildes, Sir H.
Munro. P.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Findlay, Sir E.
Nall, Sir J.
Withers, Sir J. J.


Fleming, E. L.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Furness, S. N.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Wragg, H.


Gibson, C. G.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh



Gledhill, G.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES—


Gluckstein, L. H.
Orr-Ewlng, I. L.
Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert


Goodman, Col. A. W.
Palmer, G. E. H.
Ward and Captain Waterhouse.


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Penny, Sir G.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 194; Noes, 131.

Division No. 220.]
AYES.
[8.42 p.m


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Albery, I. J.
Aske, Sir R. W.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Apsley, Lord
Baldwin-Webb. Col. J.




Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)
Radford, E. A.


Balfour, Capt. H. H.(Isle of Thanet)
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Ramsbotham, H.


Blair, Sir R.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Ramsden, Sir E.


Blaker, Sir R.
Herbert, Captain S. (Abbey)
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Blinded, Sir J.
Holmes. J. S.
Rayner, Major R. H.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Boulton, W. W.
Hopkinson, A.
Reid, W. Allen (Derby)


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.
Remer, J. R.


Brats, Sir W.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Ropner, Colonel L.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Hulbert, N. J.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Rowlands, G.


Burton, Col. H. W.
Hunter, T.
Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Jarvis, Sir J. J.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Cayzer, Sir H. R, (Portsmouth, S.)
Joel, D. J. B.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Salmon, Sir I.


Channon, H.
Jones, L. (Swansea, W.)
Salt, E. W.


Chorlton, A. E. L.
Kerr. J. G. (Scottish Universities)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.


Christie, J. A.
Kirkpatrick, W. M.
Selley, H. R.


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Lamb, Sir J. O.
Shakespeare, G. H.


Colfox, Major W. P.
Latham, Sir P.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Lees-Jones, J.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Shute, colonel Sir J. J.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh,W.)
Levy, T.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Courthope, Col. Sir G. L.
Lewis, O.
Smithers, Sir W.


Craddock, Sir R. H.
Lindsay, K. M.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Craven-Ellis, W.
Llewellin, Lieut. Col. J. J.
Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Loftus, P. C.
Spens, W. P.


Crossley, A. C.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'I'd)


Crowder, J. F. E.
Lyons, A. M.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Cruddas, Col. B.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Storey, S.


Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovil)
Mac Andrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


Dawson, Sir P.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


De Chair, S. S.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Srauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Despencer-Robertson, Major J A. F.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon H. D. R.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.
Markham, S. F.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Drewe, C.
Mayhew, Lt.-Cot. J.
Sutcliffe, H.


Duggan, H. J.
Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Duncan, J. A. L.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Dunglass, Lord
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Dunne, P. R. R.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Touche, G. C.


Eales, J. F.
Moreing, A. C.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.


Eckersley, P. T.
Morgan, R. H.
Turton, R. H.


Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Morris, J. P. (Salford, N.)
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Errington, E.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H.
Ward, Irene (Wallsend)


Fildes, Sir H.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Warrender, Sir V.


Findlay, Sir E.
Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester)
Wells, S. R.


Fleming, E. L.
Munro, P.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Furness, S. N.
Nail, Sir J.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Gibson, C. G.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Gluckstein, L. H.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Goodman, Col. A. W.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Wise. A. R.


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G.
Withers. Sir J. J.


Gridley, Sir A. B.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Grimston, R. V.
Palmer, G. E. H.
Wragg, H.


Guy, J. C. M.
Penny, Sir G.



Hanbury, Sir C.
Perkins. W. R. D.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hannah, I. C.
Petherick, M.
Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward


Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Pilkington, R.
and Captain Waterhouse.


Harbord, A.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.





NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)


Acland, R. T, D. (Barnstaple)
Buchanan, G.
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Burke, W. A.
Gallacher, W.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Cape, T.
Gardner, B. W.


Adamson, W. M.
Chater, D.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'Isbr.)
Cluse, W. S.
Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)


Ammon, C. G.
Cocks, F. S.
Grenfell, D. R.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Compton, J.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Cove, W. G.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)


Banfield, J. W.
Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)


Barnes, A. J.
Daggar, G.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)


Barr, J.
Dalton, H.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)


Batey, J.
Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Hardie, G. D.


Bellenger, F.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Harris, Sir P. A.


Benson, G.
Day, H.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)


Bevan, A.
Dobbie, W.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)


Broad, F. A.
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)


Bromfield, W.
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Hills, A. (Pontefract)


Brooke, W.
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Holland, A.







Hopkin, D.
Messer, F.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Jagger, J.
Milner. Major J.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Montague, F.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Morrison, Rt. Hn. H. (Ha'kn'y, S.)
Stephen, C.


John, W.
Morrison. R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Oliver, G. H.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Owen, Major G.
Thorne, W.


Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Paling, W.
Thurtle, E.


Kelly, W. T.
Parker, J.
Tinker, J. J.


Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Parkinson, J. A.
Vlant, S. P.


Kirby, B. V.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Walkden, A. G.


Kirkwood, D.
Potts, J.
Walker, J.


Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Price, M. P.
Watkins, F. C.


Lawson, J. J.
Pritt, D. N.
Watson, W. McL.


Leonard, W.
Quibell, D. J. K.
Westwood, J.


Leslie, J. R.
Rlley, B.
White, H. Graham


Logan, D. G.
Ritson, J.
Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)


Lunn, W.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Rowson, G.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


McGhee, H. G.
Salter, Dr. A.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


MacLaren, A.
Seely, Sir H. M.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Maclean, N.
Sexton, T. M.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Marklew, E.
Shinwell. E.



Marshall, F.
Short, A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Mathers, G.
Silverman, S. S.
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Groves.


Maxton, J.
Simpson, F. B.

CLAUSE 6.—(Power to remove or reduce additional duties in respect of certain iron and steel goods.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

8.49 p.m.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: This Clause has not hitherto received any explanation from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or from the Financial Secretary or the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade at present in charge of the Clause, and I rise to ask what is the significance of the Clause. Why are all these elaborate provisions made, and what precisely is anticipated to be the effect of them? Upon the answer, we shall be guided as to what course we take.

8.50 p.m.

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: Clause 6 seems to be one of the most interesting Clauses in the Bill, and in the Budget statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as far as I am aware, there was no reference to this interesting proposal. Some months ago, on the advice of the Import Duties Advisory Committee, very much higher duties were imposed on certain classes of steel goods. The sequel to that was certain negotiations, so I understand from the explanation subsequently given, between the British iron and steel interests and the Continental interests, as a result of which there were arrangements that shipments of certain classes of steel, of which we were not producing adequate quantities in this country, should come into this country from the Continent. As a consequence, the duties

were restored to the level at which they had been before the heavy duties were imposed. That was the arrangement, and at the moment we are not discussing whether it was a good thing or a bad thing. The arrangement was not confined to what might happen in this market; there were also certain arrangements with regard to exports to the non-steel-producing countries. This Clause seems to carry the arrangement a little further, but I have seen no reference, cither in Parliament or in the public Press, to any further arrangements between the British iron and steel interests and the Continental interests.
It looks as though this Clause is giving effect to some kind of arrangement between the British iron and steel interests and what is commonly known as the Continental cartel. It is a proposal to reduce the duties, or to have no protective duties, other than the 10 per cent, revenue duty, on certain kinds of iron and steel as specified in the First Schedule. That Schedule, broadly speaking, covers iron and steel in all its primary forms, and, indeed, in some of the rather developed forms like bolts, nuts, screws, rivets and washers. This concession, which is not duty-free importation, but importation subject to a duty of only 10 per cent., is to apply in respect of steel to which a certificate of origin is attached. This is the quantitative system applied not to free entry, but to a reduced duty. It is a novel application of the tariff principle.
In raising this issue I am neither approving of the idea nor dissenting from


it, but the Clause ought not to become law without our being conscious of this new form of protection. Behind this Clause there is the commercial agreement to which I have referred. I do not know who are the parties to that agreement, but I make the assumption that the agreement is between the Continental cartel and the British Iron and Steel Federation. It may be that every country in the world that has an iron and steel industry is party to the arrangement to which this Clause is intended to give effect. On the other hand, there may be no such arrangement. I do not know, but I am trying to guess what is behind it from the wording. This country has 40 odd treaties containing the Most-Favoured-Nation Clause, and under that Clause we must not discriminate as far as duties are concerned between the case of one foreign country and another, and, equally, the Most-Favoured-Nation Clause applies to quantitative restrictions, though obviously it is rather more difficult to operate when you come to quantitative restriction than it is with regard to tariffs. I have always assumed that if you were applying quantitative restrictions and also applying the Most-Favoured-Nation Clause you would have to state the imports of certain standard years, find out what percentage came from each country and then preserve as nearly as you could that same percentage in the future of the total imports you permitted under your quantitative system.
This Clause is a combination of quantitative restrictions and tariffs, and unless the arrangement is such that you preserve equality as between one country and another, then difficulty arises. Here you are giving an advantage. If it happens, say, that 50,000 tons of Belgian steel comes into this country, with a certificate of origin attached, and as a result it bears a duty of 10 per cent. instead of 333 Per cent., what will be the position if steel comes in from the United States? I mention the United States for the sake of argument, although in general we have not imported iron and steel from the United States. If, however, we import certain supplies from the United States and none of it enjoys this advantage of importation at 10 per cent., the United States might invoke the commercial agreement which, I think, was signed in

1814 and which contained the Most-Favoured-Nation Clause, and say: "You are not treating us fairly. You have allowed a certain amount of Belgian steel to come into your country at a reduced rate of duty and you have not applied the same rate of duty to any of our American steel. Therefore, you have broken the Most-Favoured-Nation Clause in our Treaty, and accordingly, as we are parties to certain arbitration clauses, we are going to take you to the Hague Tribunal, and the damages that Great Britain may have to pay may be £4,000,000 or whatever sum The Hague Tribunal may assess."
It is very important that we should realise what is involved. On a previous Clause there was some incidental reference to the iron and steel industry. Let us recall the history of the matter. On 1st March, 1932, a duty of 10 per cent. was applied automatically to all iron and steel goods under the revenue Clauses of the Import Duties Act. As a result of the recommendation of the Import Duties Advisory Committee on a date in April of that year—I think it was on the 26th that it was passed—33⅓ per cent. duty was applied to certain classes of iron and steel goods, but it was stated that those duties would operate for only three months, subject to the industry reorganising itself. That was the biggest joke that ever was, because if reorganisation was desired it could not be done in three months. Three months later another three months' grace was allowed, but again nothing happened, because nothing could really be done in those few months of Protection, and it was not until October, 1932, that the Import Duties Advisory Committee recommended that the industry ought to be given Protection for two years, certain. About 12 months were wasted from the General Election of 1931 until the iron and steel industry knew where it was. As a result the necessary developments were delayed and we have this extraordinary situation to-day, that the iron and steel industry is not in a position, so far as I can make out, to produce all our requirements of certain kinds of iron and steel, because—and it ought to be stated in the blunt language of the market-place—they were messed up four years ago when Protection was first introduced into this country.
This Clause, I imagine, is introduced in recognition of the fact that there are certain classes of iron and steel which at this moment this country is not producing in sufficient supply. As one who has played some part in urging a Protective policy in this country, I regret that that should be so. Apparently, that is true. The iron and steel industry in certain respects is not at this moment in a position to deliver all the goods, but I do not believe that the iron and steel industry is to blame. We were told that there must be reorganisation, whatever that means. Reorganisation seems to be one of those blessed words which is to solve all problems, although it solves none. We were told that there must be reorganisation of the industry, which means that you must persuade an industry to do something which it ought not to do, as a rule. At any rate, this alleged reorganisation delayed natural forces from producing their ordinary results in increasing productive capacity, and therefore the iron and steel industry to-day lacks the productive capacity which it ought to have.
Only the other day the hon. Member for Guildford (Sir J. Jarvis), who is one of my county Members in Surrey, in conjunction with other hon. Members, was asking why the town of Jarrow, which has a high level of unemployment, was having so much difficulty in getting an iron and steel works started in a yard which another form of reorganisation has said must not be allowed to build ships for the next 40 years. I do not like this planning of industry very much. I think it is a disastrous modern conception which is extremely reactionary.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr. Entwistle): The hon. Member cannot go into that question now.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I am anxious not to disobey any Ruling that you may give, but, as I understand it, the sole necessity of this Clause arises out of the fact that there has been a wrong kind of planning. If the iron and steel industry of this country at this moment was in a position to produce all the classes of iron and steel that we need, there would be no necessity for this Clause, but I will not go beyond that. I was merely illustrating the case of Jarrow, because only the day before we adjourned for Whitsuntide a series of questions

was addressed to the Board of Trade with regard to the difficulties which existed—I am not certain what those difficulties are—in getting a steelworks started at Jarrow. Great efforts have been made by the county of Surrey, one of the divisions which I represent in Parliament, to assist the distressed area of Jarrow. One opportunity of helping Jarrow is to get a steelworks running there, but apparently difficulties have arisen, and I imagine that those difficulties have arisen because of the conception that somebody or other has to impose reorganisation on the iron and steel industry, which invariably means the defeatist policy, that you reduce your productive capacity and when the time comes for the demand you are not in a position to deliver the goods. I imagine, although I do not know—I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us—that the object of the Clause is to enable iron and steel to be introduced into this country at a reduced rate of duty because for some reason or other the iron and steel industry at this moment is not able to meet all our national requirements.

9.4 p.m.

Dr. BURGIN: The hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) asked me to give an explanation of this Clause. The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams), in an interesting speech, has stated many things which he imagines might possibly form the basis of the Clause, and he has asked me to tell him which, if any, of them, are within the borders of truth, and try to bring the matter to a sense of proportion. That is a large undertaking. In one sentence the hon. Member for South Croydon asked whether the Clause was necessary because the British iron and steel industry was not able to cater for all the needs of the iron and steel consumers in this country. I am very thankful, as one who is interested in international trade, to think that there are few industries in any country which are in a position to cater for all the needs of the country's requirements. The secret of all modern trade is to realise that in the industrial make-up of every country there are gaps which the industries of another country can fill, and that an exchange of products can take place. It is this elementary reason which makes Germany, a highly competitive country, our


best customer because industry being so manifold and so highly developed in each we find that naturally we are the complement of each other.
This Clause is described as giving power to remove or reduce additional duties in respect of certain iron and steel goods. Sub-section (1) gives power to the Treasury, on the recommendation of the Import Duties Advisory Committee, to make an Order permitting consignments of iron and steel goods to be imported at a reduced rate, and provides that goods claiming this reduced rate shall be accompanied by a certificate of origin and also a certificate showing that they come within a certain quota. Sub-section (2) and the First Schedule deal with the range of goods to which an Order made under the Clause is intended to apply, and Sub-section (3) provides the application of the Import Duties Act powers to amend or vary an order. Sub-section (4) deals with the type of certificate of origin and Sub-section (5) with regulations. Subsection (6) is the ordinary common form Clause that anything requiring to be done by the Board of Trade may be done by the President and a certain named officer.
What is the Clause intended to do? What does the Clause really mean in terms of legislation? Let me try to explain quite shortly for the benefit of the Committee. The history of the duty on iron and steel has been not inaccurately described by the hon. Member for South Croydon—a duty first of 10 per cent. rising to 33⅓ per cent. and then rising to 50 per cent.; consternation on the part of other countries which make steel, realising that the 50 per cent. duty was largely prohibitive; then bargaining between various steel countries as to sharing markets; the reduction, of the duty from 50 per cent. to 20 per cent. with the present duty at 20 per cent. When you are concerned that a great industry in your own country should flourish and employ large numbers of operatives, that it should as far as possible supply local needs, you are concerned to protect it against any influences which would undermine its success. One of the influences which would undermine the success of the British iron and steel industry would be the wholesale dumping into this market of cheap Continental steel at prices

bearing no relation to those in the country of origin.
How can you prevent large quantities of cheap Continental steel being dumped into this country? You can do it by a variety of means. You can do it by a duty, or by prohibition, or by commonsense bargaining between different steel-producing countries; and it is this bargaining, which has resulted from the Import Duties Advisory Committee's Orders, on the part of foreign countries. When the duty on iron and steel goods coming into this country was raised to 50 per cent. the various producing countries, Belgium, France, Germany and Luxemburg, realised that this country was not imposing a temporary tariff of a low order for a period of months but intended seriously to see that its own market was kept largely for its own people. Realising that the policy of a temporary extension of the duty was no longer to apply, the foreign countries came, met the British Iron and Steel Federation in England and said, "There are quantities of foreign steel that you need. These you will want, and will no doubt permit to come in on favoured terms. If we agree to let you have these quantities that you need on favourable terms, will you arrange with your Government conditions under which, by ourselves undertaking not to flood your markets with quantities above the agreed totals, the prices at which this limited total is to come in shall be lower than would otherwise be the case?" Memories are short and may I remind the Committee that in the recommendations of the Import Duties Advisory Committee, Additional Duties Order No. 27 of 1935, which was made on 6th August last year, the details of an agreement were then given the details of what may be called a cartel agreement.
I do not want the explanation I am giving to become in any way involved. The Clause takes legislative power to differentiate and to allow goods to be introduced at a lower rate of duty than is generally applicable. When it has been passed it will be open to the Import Duties Advisory Committee to make an Order that iron and steel may be imported into this country at X duty. It will be within the power of the Treasury to say that notwithstanding this Import Duties Order certain people may


import certain steel from certain countries at a lower rate. Sub-section (1) of the Clause says:
On the recommendation of the Import Duties Advisory Committee, and after consultation with the Board of Trade, the Treasury may by order direct that any additional duty chargeable under Part I of the Import Duties Act, 1932, on a consignment of goods, being goods of a class or description to which the order applies, shall not be charged, or shall be charged at such reduced rate as may be specified in the order, if—
That is, on a given consignment there shall not be charged the full rate or there shall be charged such a reduced rate as may be specified. In the cartel agreement between the four countries made on 31st July, 1935, the relevant particulars of which are in Command Paper 4972, they are agreed as to what is to happen. There shall be imported in the first year a total not exceeding 670,000 tons of steel and in every subsequent year the total shall be 525,000 tons. That amount is to be permitted on favoured terms from these cartel countries. The imports had risen in 1934 to 912,000 tons, an increase of 42 per cent. This sensible arrangement under which the quantity of steel that is required for our local use from countries which are good customers is limited to a total import of 525,000 tons in subsequent years, on the other hand secures by sectional agreements relating to each class of products the same proportion of the total export trade as existed in 1934. I need not go through the lists of the different kinds of steel which are set out in the First Schedule. They are not quite final, and there are possibilities of slight variations being made.
The Import Duties Advisory Committee have had the matter under review, and the parties—the cartel countries and the British Iron and Steel Federation—approached the Government with the view that this system of a two-fold rate of duty, a higher rate and a lower rate, an effective sanction against undue imports, could be operated satisfactorily only by the institution of a system of licences. The Government accordingly found it necessary to provide the means which both the parties to the agreement regarded as necessary to make that agreement effective, and the arrangements contemplated in this Clause are the result of the discussions which have been taking place for months past

between representatives of the British Government, the Governments of the cartel countries and the British Iron and Steel Federation. It is not proposed to prohibit any imports into the United Kingdom, but to allow a regulated quantity of imports to enter at a favourable rate of duty while maintaining a normal rate of duty on other imports. It is for the Import Duties Advisory Committee to recommend what in its view should be the normal rate in the usual way by a recommendation under the Import Duties Act, and from time to time to recommend the reduced rate of duty for the products to which this Clause is to be applied.

Sir ROBERT TASKER: Would the Committee have power to extend the lists of other qualities of steel?

Dr. BURGIN: The variation of the list, of course, can be made only by the parties to the agreement. It is the British Iron and Steel Federation on the one hand and the cartel countries on the other that determine the list of products which can usefully be covered by an agreement of this kind. It will be found that the agreement, which is for five years with an optional break at the end of three, relates, broadly speaking, to 12 different classes of iron and steel products, and the details are set out in Order No. 27, to which I have just referred.

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: I understand that licences will be granted in respect of specific consignments. Suppose I became ambitious and thought I would like to be an importer of Belgian steel, never having imported any in the past, under the ordinary tariff system I could start in that way, but under the new licensing system of Clause 6, would I be permitted to enter the business And to bring in any steel at a reduced rate of duty, or would that privilege be given only to people already in the business?

Dr. BURGIN: That is a perfectly proper question, and I think the answer is as follows: In all probability the export trade from any country would be regarded as part of that country's trade; that would be the contention which His Majesty's Government would put forward. I imagine, therefore, that in any question of the export of Belgian steel from Belgium to


the United Kingdom, the licence would be granted to the Belgian exporter and he would be required to show that the steel came from Belgium and was within Belgium's quota of permitted imports into the United Kingdom. I imagine that whether or not any particular individual in this country could import steel at the reduced rate would depend on the relations of that importer with the British Iron and Steel Federation. I think my answer is correct.
It was clear that with that state of affairs, before the President of the Board of Trade could allow a system of that kind to be introduced into the law of the land, it was necessary for him to obtain assurances from the British Iron and Steel Federation as to what would be their attitude to such cases as that mentioned by the hon. Member for South Groydon (Mr. H. G. Williams). Accordingly, on 31st March, 1936, assurances were given to the President of the Board of Trade by the British Iron and Steel Federation. I must trouble the Committee by giving the actual terms of the undertaking, because I apprehend it is a matter of extreme interest to hon. Members. The undertaking is in these terms:
The Council unanimously agreed to undertake on behalf of the Federation,

(a) To use their best endeavours to secure that adequate supplies of suitable steel are at all times available to meet the reasonable requirements of British consumers and to make arrangements, if circumstances so require, for the importation of such additional tonnages as the Import Duties Advisory Committee may deem necessary in excess of those fixed by the Cartel Agreement;
(b) To make such arrangements for the disposal of the imports of foreign steel from the Cartel as will secure to the satisfaction of the Import Duties Advisory Committee the equitable distribution of such steel as to quantities, qualities and prices among all classes of consumers without discrimination as to whether or not they are members of an affiliated Association;
(c) To undertake that membership of affiliated Associations shall be open to all firms who are eligible under their rules and willing to observe them;
(d) To arrange that the prices of the agreed imports of foreign steel shall not be in excess of the prices charged for corresponding British steel to Members of the Federation; and in this connection reaffirm the assurance as to the price

policy of the Federation given in the Memorandum submitted to the Board of Trade dated 14th March, 1935."

What I have endeavoured to do for the moment is not to meet arguments or to advocate a policy. I have endeavoured merely to expound. I do not want the Committee to assume that the remarks which I am concluding have been an advocacy of the policy. They have not been intended to be such. They have been an explanation of what I apprehend the Clause to mean. I have been showing that we prefer a common sense agreement to either prohibition or an excessive tariff wall, pointing out that the agreement appears to me to contain proper safeguards, and giving the undertaking which the British Iron and Steel Federation have given to the Board of Trade.

9.26 p.m.

Mr. BENSON: May I ask the Minister whether the agreement which he has read is available to the House?

Dr. BURGIN: I have told the hon. Member—perhaps he did not follow—that the terms of the agreement are to be found in Command Paper 4972, which was the additional Import Duties Order No. 27 of March, 1925.

Mr. BENSON: That is not the document which the Minister quoted.

Dr. BURGIN: If the hon. Member means the undertaking, I have read the undertaking in extenso, and consequently it will be quoted in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. BENSON: Is it not customary that any document read by a Minister should be available to the House?

Dr. BURGIN: I can imagine no better way of making any document available than to read it, and for it to be quoted in the OFFICIAL KEPORT.

Mr. BENSON: The Minister has no right to quote a document unless it is made available to Members at the Vote Office.

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: The guarantee of the British Iron and Steel Federation does not cover my hypothetical case. Why should not I be able to become an importer of iron and steel and have the same preference that will be given to other people? I stand for a certain amount of liberty and freedom. What


guarantee have I that if I become an importer I shall be allowed to import these products?

Mr. LEES-SMITH: Did the Parliamentary Secretary quote the whole of the document or only extracts?

Dr. BURGIN: I did my best in the time at my disposal to quote what I think was the whole document. The opening paragraph is:

"To the Rt. Hon. Walter Runciman, M.P.,

Board of Trade,

Gt. George Street, S.W.1.

Sir,—At a meeting of the council of the British Iron and Steel Federation, held here on. the 19th instant I explained to them that in connection with the statutory imposition of a licensing system in respect of importations under our International Agreement there were certain assurances which it would be necessary for the federation to give to you as President of the Board of Trade.

The council unanimously agreed to under take on behalf of the federation"—

9.29 p.m.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: May I point out to the Minister that there is a well established Rule of this House that if he quotes a document, quite apart from the fact that that document automatically appears in the OFFICIAL REPORT, that document must be laid? Will he give the House an assurance that the document will be laid?

Dr. BURGIN: I do not myself accept the interpretation which the right hon. Gentleman has put on the Rule. This is a letter. If it is necessary that that letter shall be made available to hon. Members it shall be. I am not trying to depart from procedure, and if it is in accordance with practice that it should be laid, it shall be laid.

9.30 p.m.

Sir P. HARRIS: We have had a very remarkable statement from the Parliamentary Secretary. Anybody who had been listening to the discussion to-night would not have realised that we were discussing the Finance Bill of the year. On the Contrary he would have got the impression that we are now introducing a new kind of legislation for carrying out the policy of the Government for Protection of British industry. I do not always agree with the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams), but we owe him a debt of obligation for dragging out of the Minister this long statement

of the meaning and working of this proposed Clause. If it had not been for pressure from this House, the House and the country would not have known the real significance of this Clause. The speech which the hon. Gentleman has just made should have been put into a White Paper. It has taken him about 20 minutes to explain the meaning of the Clause. He has had to produce out of his folios a Memorandum on which, on his own admission, the smooth working of this Clause depends—an undertaking, not given by the Government or the Board of Trade, but by the Federation of the Iron and Steel Industry. That does not include the whole industry of the country, but only certain favoured industries, and, as the hon. Member for South Croydon suggested, if he liked to start an industry and to import these commodities it would be very difficult for him to get a licence.
When we passed our new system of import duties we had long debates in this House; the proposals were subjected to most minute examination, and we set up a new form of committee to pass these duties. We are now departing from that policy. It may be a good thing or bad, but we are departing from that policy and substituting a system of quotas and licences. I defy anybody who has heard the discussion to be quite clear how this particular Clause will work or how the Government intend it to work. I approach sympathetically any proposal to cheapen the raw material of industry and to enable our manufacturers of iron and steel goods to draw their raw material from the widest possible market, but under this system we have arrangements made behind the back of Parliament, private negotiations between private industries, and when the thing is accomplished they will come to the Minister to implement the proposal. I want the House to realise that this scheme will be a limited quota, a maximum. We assume that the importers of these commodities will import only as long as they find it profitable. When they have enough they will stop, and the late comers will not be able to share the swag. The people who get the licences will be privileged people.
I am satisfied from my knowledge of the President of the Board of Trade and the very able Parliamentary Secretary


that they will do their best and will exercise zeal in the discharge of their duties in this matter, but inevitably there will be suspicion in the minds of the less fortunate importers that some privileged merchants who have had a pull have been able to get in first and secure the advantages of these licences and quotas. I suggest that we ought not to part with this Clause until we have had a White Paper setting forth the full facts, figures and details, the memorandum of agreement, and the letter from the President of the Board of Trade, so that Members, whether Free Traders or Protectionists, whether directly interested in this industry or not, shall be in full possession of the facts and able to realise the significance of this new departure in our policy regarding international trade.
The Parliamentary Secretary apparently surprised some of his supporters by his discourse on the advantages of international trade, but it did not surprise me, because I know that the hon. Gentleman's conversion from the economic doctrine with which Members on these benches are associated was very sudden. There was no finer advocate of free imports, no finer lecturer and speaker on the advantages of free imports than the hon. Gentleman, and so he was naturally able to give lip service to those dectrines which had little concern with the proposals contained in this Clause. I do not feel that the Committee is justified in passing this Clause, and I put that view to hon. Members, irrespective of whether they are Protectionists or Free Traders. In many ways I think the Clause is less desirable from a Protectionist point of view than from a Free Trade point of view, but we are not justified in passing it until we have all the facts and figures before us, in black and white, so that Members may form a considered judgment as to the desirability of legislation of this kind. I should like, if it were in order, to move that the Chairman do report- Progress, but if that is not possible I hope the Committee will hold up the Clause until we are in a position to form a judgment on the effects which it may have in the future.

9.39 p.m.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: I do not propose to enter into the Debate on the general

subject, but it is evident that the statement of the Minister has shown us a method of legislation and a method of dealing with the whole question of imports which sets a new precedent, which is exceedingly complicated and which, in spite of the Minister's speech, has not been fully explained. For that reason I think the suggestion that there should be a White Paper covering the whole subject is one to which the hon. Gentleman ought to accede. In order to show that he is practically bound to issue a Paper covering the document which he has read, I propose to quote Erskine May on the duty of a Minister in regard to reading a State paper in the House of Commons—and any document addressed with authority to a Minister is a State document according to the interpretation of Erskine May. The relevant passage is:
A minister of the Crown is not at liberty to read or quote from a despatch or other state paper not before the house unless he be prepared to lay it upon the table. The principle is so reasonable that it has not been contested; and when the objection has been made in time"—
and in this case it was immediately made—
it has generally been acquiesced in.
Therefore, I think the Minister has no choice but is bound to lay a paper concerning the subject-matter of his speech. As he is so bound, I ask him now to give the full history of this matter, not in a speech but in a White Paper containing full particulars such as a speech made here from notes cannot possibly contain. We are dealing with a new method of legislation and nobody can have heard this Debate without being impressed by the enormous powers which are being wielded by these outside organisations. They are bargaining with the Government, in some respects as if they were rival governments themselves. The House of Commons and the public are entitled to the full facts before the Report stage. Without those facts a satisfactory debate is impossible. This Debate is taking place in exceedingly difficult circumstances. The Minister himself practically said that he would not expect the Committee to understand what the Clause signified and it is obvious that we cannot, reasonably, be expected to understand all the Clause signifies if we are not to have a full explanation of it. I suggest, therefore,


that this Clause should be postponed until we have had a White Paper enabling us to deal with the subject with proper knowledge.

9.42 p.m.

Sir F. ACLAND: I think my right hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) has indicated the reasonable line for the Committee to take, namely, that this Clause should be postponed. We are in a difficulty. I do not think it would be fair to suggest that the letter from the cartel was only read by the Minister because the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) asked a particular question as to what his position would be if he wanted to get steel under the arrangements contemplated in the Clause. I assume that the Minister was going to read the letter in any case. That being so, surely the Committee ought to be in a position to see it on paper, either in the report of the Minister's speech or preferably in a White Paper, before deciding on the merits of the Clause. Those merits depend to a large extent on its exact meaning, which it was not easy to judge from a rather rapid reading of the letter. I am not now going into the question of whether it ought to be laid or not. I think it ought to be, but as I gather—and as I say it was difficult to gather the full implications of the letter—it could well be taken to mean that this special importation would be only for members of the cartel, and only at prices not higher than those at which they were willing to sell British steel of the same quality. If that is so, I can imagine that people who are not inside this cartel might have very reasonable grounds for demurring to the arrangement which the Government are kindly making for those who are inside the cartel, but at any rate, as so much depends on being able to see the terms of that very important letter which the Government have not made available to us in any form, even by the slightest reference, until the Minister read it towards the end of his speech, I think the really fair and square thing to do by the Committee would be to postpone this Clause until we have had a chance of seeing what it all really means.

9.46 p.m.

Mr. R. C. MORRISON: The most interesting feature of the Debate is the circumstance in which it has arisen.
There was no mention of this matter in the Budget, and there would have been no mention of it to-night had it not been for the fact that while the Government intended to allow the Clause to go through without a word of explanation, the matter was raised on the question of the Clause standing part.

Dr. BURGIN: The hon. Member must not make observations of that kind. It is customary on the Finance Bill for an explanation of a Clause to be asked for. The hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) asked for an explanation, and I intended to give and I gave a full and complete explanation on the first opportunity. The hon. Member must not give the Committee to understand that it was an attempt to get this Clause through without giving an explanation. There is no foundation for such a statement.

Mr. MORRISON: I can only say that those who have been present throughout this Debate are in a position to judge as to how much of the information has been freely given by the Government and how much has been, in the words of the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris), dragged from the hon. Member. As I understand the position, this statement made by the Minister foreshadows the re-formation of the international iron and steel cartel, which broke down some 18 months or two years ago. While the hon. Gentleman was making his announcement, my mind was running along the lines of a speech delivered by the chairman of one of the largest iron and steel companies in this country at the annual meeting of his shareholders a few weeks ago, in which he pointed out that the decrease in profits in the past year was entirely due to the breakdown of the international iron and steel cartel, and that if only something could be done to re-form that cartel, more prosperous times would be shown in their next balance-sheet. It seems to me that, following on the lines of that speech, the Government have now decided to help to re-form the international iron and steel cartel. I noticed also in the Press in the last day or two a statement that a Noble Lord, who was until recently a distinguished Member of this House, was one of the passengers to America on the maiden voyage of the "Queen Mary," as part of a delegation to interview the iron


and steel people in America with the object, I presume, of trying to ascertain whether the American iron and steel manufacturers would be prepared to join in the cartel to which reference has been made to-night.
It seems to me that this question is of so much importance that we ought to have much fuller information than we have had up to now, and in a form in which Members could quietly read it before debating the subject. One thing which exercised me during the Parliamentary Secretary's speech was that he concluded his remarks by saying that he had not attempted to advocate any policy, but that he had only explained it. Does that mean that the hon. Member is not supporting this proposal? It seems to me a remarkable thing that when it is a matter of sharing profits and markets, the capitalists of all countries are very ready to make these arrangements, but when it is a matter of trying to stop the vast expenditure upon armaments throughout the world, neither capitalists nor Governments appear to meet with any success. In a matter of this sort they not only meet with remarkable success in a very short space of time, but they succeed in getting Governments to endorse their action and to give it legislative form. My interpretation of the hon. Gentleman's announcement is that it foreshadows that the international iron and steel cartel is now to be re-formed with the full backing of the British Government, and that is a matter which ought to be much more fully debated, and upon much more complete information than we have yet had before us.

9.51 p.m.

Dr. BURGIN: I am sure the Committee will acquit me of any desire to keep any facts from them, and I do not think there will be support in any part of the Committee for the suggestion that I am not in favour of the Clause which I am moving. I was asked for an explanation of the Clause, and I contented myself with giving that explanation without advancing arguments in favour of it. The right hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) asked me—and he quoted the relevant section of Erskine May's work—whether there was now a definite assurance that the undertaking given to the President of the Board of Trade by

the British Iron and Steel Federation would be laid. Certainly, unquestionably. This type of undertaking has not infrequently been given in connection with Import Duties Advisory Committee Orders. I have myself at this Box moved a number of such Orders, in regard to which there have been undertakings given by the makers that consumers' interests would not be allowed to suffer and that prices would not be raised, and I have not infrequently quoted from undertakings of that kind without the question of the documents being laid being raised. I was under the impression, obviously wrongly, from the quotations which the right hon. Member opposite made, that where I was dealing with a matter of that sort there was less formality than where one was referring to a State paper. I have been corrected in that matter; I recognise it at once, and I give the undertaking that that document shall be laid.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: As part of a White Paper?

Dr. BURGIN: In whatever is the appropriate form for a document which has been referred to by a Minister to be laid. I now come to the general question as to how this Clause ought to be dealt with. The only question that is outstanding, apart from the appeal which has been made that this Clause should be postponed, is the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams), who wanted to know what was the position of a person who suddenly took it into his head to start up in the importation of steel fittings, and why he, as a loyal British subject, should not be allowed to buy steel from Belgium at the lower rate of duty.

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: On the same terms as British steel.

Dr. BURGIN: If the hon. Member can secure that the cartel will sell to him. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!'] Well, it takes two to make a contract. If the cartel will sell him the steel as part of the quantities in the agreement, the steel will come in at the lower rate of duty. Arrangements have been made whereby the Government have received assurances as to the method in which the British Iron and Steel Federation will discharge their responsibility for equitable distribution, and the federation


have given, in the words that I have read out and which I am going to lay, assurances that consumers who are not members of the federation will receive a fair share of imported steel at the same price as members.
The hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris), the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland) have suggested that this is a matter of such complexity that there ought to be a White Paper, and that the Committee ought to have an outline before them in some form more easy to assimilate than a speech involving the reading of an undertaking giving material guarantees. I suggest that the Commitee are not for the moment giving adequate weight to the fact that this agreement has been set out almost in full in Order No. 27 of August, 1935, Cmd. Paper 4972. In that Order the legislation which is now contemplated is forecast. The arrangement whereby steel is coming into this country and is limiting in extent the actual tonnage, the rate of duty, the countries, the classes of steel goods, the proposal to have a differential rate of duty, the agreement with the cartel, the reasons why the matter is dealt with by agreement rather than by prohibition or a high rate of duty—all these things are set out in the Order. I have no objection to giving any information the Committee would like, and, within reason, to giving it in the form which is most convenient to the Committee. I am willing at once to say that if the Committee will pass the Clause I will, between now and Report, lay a White Paper giving the whole of the material for which the Committee has asked.
I am unable to agree to the postponement of the Clause. I realise the complexity of this matter, however. I have nothing that I wish to keep back. I want the Committee to understand that what an hon. Member above the Gangway described as a bargain between governments may conceivably be an extremely advantageous bargain, and that all the manufacturers of iron and steel in this country may be very thankful that cheap foreign steel above a certain quantity is to be excluded from this market. If adequate provision is made for consumers

nothing could be better than that one of the basic industries in this country should be fully restored to prosperity, employing large numbers of men in industries in which, being basic, employment has hitherto been restricted. It may be a great advantage to this country to have such an arrangement. I believe that the agreement that has been made with the iron and steel cartel is one that the Committee will desire to implement. Believing that, I have no hesitation in offering to lay between now and the Report stage a White Paper containing the information, including, of course, the entire terms both of the original agreement and of the undertaking given to the President of the Board of Trade.

9.59 p.m.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I have-listened with a great deal of interest to the Parliamentary Secretary's long and careful explanation—for which I thank him—of the provisions of this Clause, but, in spite of what he has said, I do earnestly press, not in any spirit of obstruction, that the Government will reconsider our carefully considered suggestion that they should postpone this. Clause to a later stage of the Committee proceedings on this Bill. When I first read the Clause I thought that it was quite a simple proposal admitting of a' simple explanation. I noticed that the-only proposition contained in it was a^ possibility of reducing the duty in certain circumstances. I imagined that after the simple explanation, my friends sitting, behind me, and, I have no doubt, hon. Members below the Gangway, would have-offered no objection to the passage of the Clause. When the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) spoke, I began to realise that there was more in the Clause than we imagined; and when the Parliamentary Secretary explained it, I found it becoming "curiouser and curiouser." I am now, after having heard all the Debate, in a complete fog as to what the Clause really proposes to do. I venture to think that that is not due to my peculiar obtuseness, because I really believe that, with the exception of the Minister himself, there is probably no one in the Committee who has a full understanding of what the Clause does.
It is not merely that the Clause is difficult to understand, but we are faced


here with an important new principle. Hitherto, we have put on and taken off duties, and they have been carried through by the Orders with which we have become familiar, and this procedure has removed a great deal of power and control from this House. We are now faced with an entirely new procedure. We are faced with the proposition that an industry in this country makes a bargain with cartels in other countries; it comes to the Government, and, as part of the proposed arrangement between the industry and the Government, we are to have an entirely moveable tariff. The Government can put the tariff up or down. At first, I thought that this Clause was more or less innocuous, because it would mean nothing but a lowering of the tariff. As the Parliamentary Secretary explained it, I became suspicious because, as I understand the position now, the Import Duties Advisory Committee can at any time recommend an increase of the tariff, and we may be confronted any day with an increase above the present tariff to what will then become the normal tariff. Then the Government will have the right, if this Clause be carried in its present form, to cut that tariff down in respect of certain unspecified imports from various countries.
In other words, as I understand the Clause, we are entering upon an entirely new departure of tariff policy, which gives the Government a freedom to alter the tariffs between one importer and another and creates an entirely new system. The Parliamentary. Secretary shakes his head. I may be wrong, but this is certainly something very new and a departure in policy of a grave kind. It may not have the effect that I have been suggesting, but the point I am making is that it is difficult to understand it. It is not possible for us to understand it, coming to this proposition for the first time in spite of hearing the careful speech of the Parliamentary Secretary. It was inadequate to explain the complexities of this Clause, and it has been impossible for this Committee to grasp its full details.
I would remind the hon. Gentleman that it is customary for financial propositions to go through a number of elaborate stages

in this House. In the first place, the Chancellor of the Exchequer sets out the grounds of his proposals in a general Budget speech. On that are framed the Resolutions which go through the Committee and Report stages. Then they are brought in in the form of the Finance Bill and carried through the different stages of a Bill. I am not complaining of what was done, but neither in the speech introducing the Budget nor in the discussion on the Resolution did we have any reference whatever to this Clause. I do not think the hon. Gentleman will deny that it is a Clause of great perplexity, and though I will certainly give him credit for a very able speech I do not think even he will claim that he can hope to have made it clear to this Committee, hearing it only for the first time.
I put it to the right hon. Gentleman who is now leading the House in the absence of the Prime Minister that there has been nothing in the nature of obstruction on the part of the Opposition. We have not made long speeches, and we have passed five Clauses, some of them of great importance, in some five hours, and that is good going for a Finance Bill. I remember when I sat in the place occupied by the present Financial Secretary to the Treasury that we spent five days, sitting up half through the night, without getting as far with the Finance Bill as the Opposition have allowed the Government to get in these few hours. In the circumstances I do not think it is an unreasonable request, and I hope that the Government, for the sake of clarity in our proceedings, will consent to this very simple proposal. I think it will not mean additional delay for them, but will very much facilitate business, because if we are to continue discussing this subject to-night we shall go on for a considerable time, whereas if we know that we shall have the White Paper which the Parliamentary Secretary has already promised, and postpone this Clause until a little later, we can then go on with the remaining parts of the Bill. Afterwards, with the information before us, I see no reason why the Clause should not be disposed of quite quickly. In the interest of making progress with this Bill I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that he should consent to postpone the further consideration of this Clause until after the present week.

10.8 p.m.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir J. Simon): If we could have your Ruling, Captain Bourne, on a point which has occurred to me, I think it might save time. I must not be understood to accept the suggestion of the hon. Member opposite, and my hon. Friends who are in charge of this business to-night do not, of course, require my intervention, but I would like to ask whether it is not the case, when the question that the Clause stand part of the Bill has been put, that that does not involve the view that the Clause has been considered, and would it then be in order to move that the consideration of the Clause be postponed?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have naturally been giving this question such attention as I have been able to give it in the Chair ever since it became obvious that the question of the postponement of the Clause might arise. Unfortunately, Erskine May is not very assisting on this particular subject:
Clauses may be postponed unless they have already been partly considered and amended, in which case it is not regular to postpone them.
The Question has been put from the Chair "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," and were I to accept a Motion for the postponement it would mean that we were doing something we have never done in the Committee or in the House, and that is to postpone a Debate which has already been commenced. I think I am bound to hold that a Motion to postpone a Clause must be made before the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill" is put from the Chair. It is now too late to do that, and I must hold that a Motion to postpone the Clause at this moment would be out of order.

10.10 p.m.

Mr. MICHAEL BEAUMONT: Without saying anything on the merits of the ease, may I ask your Ruling on this point? Supposing it were desired to do so, would it not be in order to re-commit the Bill in respect of this Clause, which would have exactly the same effect?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am afraid I do not follow the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. M. Beaumont). Of course, the Committee could delete the

Clause and some new Clause would then have to be brought up. But I am afraid the question of recommitting the Bill in respect of this Clause does not appear to arise at this moment.

10.12 p.m.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: May I venture to suggest that what we have been doing hitherto is not so much discussing the Clause as endeavouring to elicit from the Government what the Clause means? That is what the Parliamentary Secretary said. He explained that he always intended to give an explanation of the Clause, but waited till I rose to ask for an explanation, and then gave it. I suggest that the Government might accept the view that the Clause has not been discussed, but that we sought an explanation of it, and that on that explanation we are now asking that the Clause be postponed.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) puts a very attractive proposition before me, but I am afraid that where no Amendment is down to a Clause it is a very common practice for the Committee to ask for explanations of the meaning of the Clause, and there is a discussion, and I could not regard that as really providing only an explanation.

10.13 p.m.

Sir F. ACLAND: I do not in any way challenge your Ruling, Captain Bourne, but I was wondering whether you had refreshed your memory by consulting the manual of procedure—the latest edition, 1934—in which it states:
The consideration of a Clause may, on motion made, be postponed, but the motion may not be made if the Clause has been amended.
That is all that is said. No question of Amendment arises here, and therefore it does seem to me that the consideration of the Clause can be postponed. It is on page 174 of the Manual, Section 186.

10.14 p.m.

Sir J. SIMON: I am only interested to see that we get our procedure right, and we are in your hands, Captain Bourne, but I should have thought that that was an illustration, an illustration only, of a very plain principle. If one reads it at large the form of a Motion to postpone a Clause is to postpone the consideration of the Clause, and the real question is, Has the Clause been considered and


debated? If it has been considered and debated I cannot see how we can decide that it shall not be considered. It has been considered. What has been, has been.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. ATTLEE: I think that this is the kind of matter which has arisen in Committees upstairs. The point of postponing a Clause does not arise generally until the Clause has come to be discussed. Has it not occurred at some time in Committees upstairs, when a Clause has been under discussion and it has been said that the Government are willing to postpone it, that thereafter there has been the postponement of the Clause, when there has been no Amendment and when there has been some preliminary discussion? Is it not rather difficult to conceive of the postponement of the Clause before the Clause has been discussed, because the matter would never have arisen?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Replying to the Leader of the Opposition, I must say that I have not been on a Committee upstairs for so long that I have somewhat forgotten what happened there. The only occasion in my memory in which a. Clause has been postponed in Committee of the Whole House was when a Motion for postponement had been moved before the Chair had put the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." I can remember it several times occurring in this House antecedent to that Motion. I am afraid that I must stick to my view, which is the same as that of the Home Secretary, that once Debate has been started it is too late to postpone the Clause. I admit that that decision puts the Committee into some difficulty.

10.16 p.m.

Dr. BURGIN: It not infrequently happens in Committee that a Clause is passed subject to an undertaking on behalf of the Government and given by the Minister in charge. What I am anxious to do is to give the Committee an unqualified undertaking to supply them with the information which they desire, in order that the Clause may be properly considered before it passes finally into legislation. That, it seems to me, is the exact equivalent of asking

a Committee to pass a Clause subject to reconsideration. I am asking the Committee to pass the Clause. Divide, by all means, but let us proceed with the Clause upon an undertaking given by me, as the responsible Minister in charge, that I will, between now and the next effective stage without which the Bill cannot become law, lay, in the fullest and most complete manner that my advisers can prepare, a White Paper, giving, on all the demands that have been made from all quarters of the Committee, the fullest information, so that the whole of this matter is available. Then, between the usual channels, it will no doubt be possible to arrange that a discussion on the information shall be taken when the next stage of the Bill will be reached. I mention that because I am anxious that a matter of complexity should be dealt with clearly and reasonably on the Floor of the House, with full knowledge of the facts.
There is a great deal of misapprehension in the mind of the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence), who talked of the Government doing something at the request of industry. This has been done upon the recommendation of the Import Duties Advisory Committee, and, so far from it being a wide departure from the original procedure, it is an attempt to follow it out. It is with the consciousness that, with that explanation fully before it, the Committee will much more clearly understand the position, that I ask that we may proceed to take a vote upon the Clause, upon the definite understanding and undertaking, given by me, that between now and the next stage of this Measure, the full facts are laid before the Committee.

10.18 p.m.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: Shall we also have an undertaking that, on the Report stage, we shall be given sufficient time to discuss the rest of the Bill at the usual length, and that account will be taken of the fact that the particular Clause will require more discussion than was originally anticipated? Considering the issues involved, we certainly should have half a day for discussion upon the Clause.

Dr. BURGIN: Without committing myself to any particular time, I should think the request of the right hon.
Gentleman should evidently be carried into effect, and I should personally desire to see it carried into effect.

10.19 p.m.

Mr. M. BEAUMONT: I have no great interest in this matter, except from the point of view of procedure, but I wish to suggest, Sir, that you might adopt a simpler method of dealing with it. I do not think that the Committee have been put into any great difficulty by your Ruling, but I suggest that a much more convenient way would be to negative the Clause and then to put down a new Clause for discussion on Committee stage. It seems to me that the Committee stage is the place to discuss this matter, and upon a new Clause. That would be a much better way. I shall support the Government in whatever line they take. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, but have been prepared to divide against my party far more than they have. I do not think it is a matter of great importance, and I only rise to put it because I believe sincerely that from the point of view of procedure this would be the more convenient course to adopt.

10.20 p.m.

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: I desire to reinforce the appeal of my hon. Friend. The undertaking given by the Parliamentary Secretary that there will be ample time on Report is not quite satisfactory. I am not blaming him, but the opportunities of proposing Amendments on Report are very much more restricted than in Committee, and, having regard to the discussion to-night—I am a little to blame, perhaps, for having stirred it up, but the matter seemed to me to be one of great importance—it may well be that, on considering this case more fully when we read it than we have considered it so far, a number of Members may wish to propose Amendments. It seems to me that the Report stage is a most inconvenient time at which to commence attempts to amend a Clause, and that the proper time for the main body of Amendments is the Committee stage. The object of the Report stage is really the tidying up of those matters which experience of the Committee stage shows cannot be dealt with at that moment. When it is proposed to give an opportunity for what I may call the general body of Amendments, surely that ought to be done in

Committee. Therefore, it seems to me that we might negative the Clause now, and leave it to be re-tabled as a new Clause. If it is necessary that there should be some alteration, it would be quite easy to alter a few words. Surely, we ought to have the opportunity of proposing substantial Amendments. After all, I posed two questions to the Parliamentary Secretary, and, quite honestly, he has not answered either of them. I posed in my speech a question about the Most-Favoured-Nation Clause, and the OFFICIAL REPORT will bear record of it—

Dr. BURGIN: My hon. Friend certainly referred to the Most-Favoured-Nation Clause, but it was not within my recollection that he asked any question. I thought he laid down the procedure which he imagined the Government would adopt in connection with the quantitative system of regulation under the Most-Favoured-Nation Clause. I listened to what he said, and the point was an interesting one, but I was quite unaware that he put to me any question arising out of it, and I think that, when we both read the OFFICIAL REPORT, we shall not find that there was any question, unless a question could be read into the expression of hope at the conclusion of my hon. Friend's speech.

Mr. WILLIAMS: My interpretation does not rest on the question of something at the end of my speech, but when in debate one raises a point of some substance one is raising a question, and the question I raised was how this Clause could be worked without breach of the Most-Favoured-Nation Clause. At the time that I raised it I had not read the document to which the Parliamentary Secretary referred, and which is available in the Vote Office. It is Cmd. 4972, and on the second page it is pointed out:
The agreement provides, on the one hand, for the limitation of the total imports of these products from the four countries at present represented in the cartel.
I think the four countries are Germany, Belgium, France, and Luxemburg. It goes on:
Under the Most Favoured Nation Clause of our commercial treaties, however, such a reduction would have to extend to similar products imported from other countries with whom no agreement had been made for restriction of imports.
Among those countries which are in the habit of exporting iron and steel goods are Japan, Russia, and the United States


of America, with all of whom I think we have a treaty containing the Most-Favoured-Nation Clause. My imaginary constituent in Croydon wants to be an importer of iron and steel. The Parliamentary Secretary's answer was that it did not matter because he would not be allowed to buy any steel from the cartel. As far as I know, there is nothing in the Belgian law to prevent me from starting a steel works in Belgium. Here we are challenging the fundamental liberty of the British people to enter into any business they like. That is the issue that concerns me. Anyone is entitled to choose his own occupation. I do not think the President of the Board of Trade should be entitled to say, "Thou shalt not be a seller of iron and steel." No one can import meat into this country without a licence, and you cannot get a licence unless you have been an importer in the past. This is an extension from meat into iron and steel, and the Committee ought to know exactly where they are travelling before they commit themselves to this which is completely destructive of freedom of contract, freedom of enterprise and freedom of trade, which is quite different from Free Trade.
If my hypothetical constituent buys a ton of steel from the United States, he is called upon to pay a higher duty than someone from another constituency who is a licensed importer who buys a ton of identically the same kind of steel from Belgium. If that is the case, it is a complete infraction of every interpretation that has ever been put on the Most-Favoured-Nation Clause. I said if this arises, and a nation with whom we have a Most-Favoured-Nation Clause who is also a, party to the Hague Tribunal hales us before the tribunal, and damages are given against us, what is going to be the reply? I think we ought to know whether this Clause can be worked without a breach of the Most-Favoured-Nation Clause.

Dr. BURGIN: The answer is in the affirmative.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I do not attach much importance to the hon. Gentleman's declaration, unless he shows how it is in the affirmative. The argument that I presented shows that two persons importing steel, one from one country and one

from another, will be charged different rates of duty, and the whole importation of steel which which may come from the United States will be at one rate and part of that coming from Belgium will be at another. If that is not a complete infraction of every conception of the Most-Favoured-Nation Clause, I do not understand what the Most-Favoured-Nation Clause is. If the Parliamentary Secretary is so certain that the answer is in the affirmative, perhaps he will now explain how the situation which I have described is in accordance with the Most-Favoured-Nation Clause.

10.29 p.m.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: I do not think we can allow the Debate to close without expressing our opinion that the Committee have been put into a most difficult and unfortunate position, not by any action of its own but by the neglect of the Government to take the opportunity that it has had of giving some suggestion in advance of the immense importance of this Clause. It is now clear, from the nature of the discussion and the significance which everyone attaches to it, that this part of the Bill should have been explained during the Second Reading. In those circumstances we should have been able to make up our minds and to consider all the very complicated questions that have arisen. It is impossible to have an intelligent discussion of the Clause in these conditions, as our only knowledge of it is in the speech that the Minister has made. The responsibility for that is in the conduct of the Bill by the Government. In order to express our views that the responsibility lies with the Government, I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

The Committee proceeded to a Division—

Mr. BEVAN: (seated and covered): On a point of Order, Captain Bourne. I was on my feet trying to get your attention, so that I might say a word or two on the Motion to report Progress, but you put the Motion from the Chair without having seen me. Is it not desirable that the Committee should have an opportunity of addressing itself to the matter of procedure before we go on to the Clause


itself? There are one or two things that I want to say on procedure in Committee, and I submit that there ought to have been a discussion on the Motion to report Progress.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The decision whether or not I should put the Question forthwith rests with me.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 138; Noes, 219.

Division No. 221.]
AYES.
[10.32 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Owen, Major G.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Paling, W.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Parker, J.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Parkinson, J. A.


Adamson, W. M.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Pethlck-Lawrence, F. W.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Hardle, G. D.
Potts, J.


Ammon, C. G.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Price, M. P.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Pritt, D. N.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Banfield, J. W.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Rlley, B.


Barnes, A. J.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Ritson, J.


Barr, J.
Holland, A.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Batey, J.
Hopkin, D.
Rothschild, J. A. de


Bellenger, F,
Jagger, J.
Rowson, G.


Benson, G.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Seely, Sir H. M.


Bevan, A.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Sexton, T. M.


Broad, F. A.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Shinwell, E.


Bromfield, W.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Short, A.


Brooke, W.
Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Silverman, S. S.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S, Ayrshire)
Kelly, W. T.
Simpson, F. B.


Buchanan, G.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhlthe)


Burke, W. A.
Kirby, B. V.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Cape, T.
Kirk wood, D.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Chater, D.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Cluse, W. S.
Lathan, G.
Sorensen, R. W.


Cocks, F. S
Lawson, J. J,
Stephen, C.


Compton, J.
Lee, F.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Cove, W. G.
Leonard, W.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Leslie, J. R.
Thurtle, E.


Daggar, G.
Logan, D. G.
Tinker, J. J.


Dalton, H.
Lunn, W.
Vlant, S. P.


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Walkden, A. G.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
McGhee, H. G.
Walker, J.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
McGovern, J.
Watkins, F. C.


Day, H.
MacLaren, A.
Watson, W. McL.


Debbie, W.
Maclean, N.
Westwood, J.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
MacNeill, Weir, L.
White, H. Graham


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Marklew, E.
Whiteley, W.


Elvans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Marshall, F.
Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)


Elvans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Mathers, G.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Maxton, J.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Foot, D. M.
Messer, F.
Wilson, C. H. (Atterclifte)


Gardner, B. W.
Montague, F.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Ha'ka'y, S.)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Morrison. R. C. (Tottenham, N.)



Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Naylor, T. E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES —


Grenfell, D. R.
Oliver, G. H.
Mr. John and Mr. Groves.




NOES


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Cartland, J. R. H.
Dawson, Sir P.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Cary, R. A.
De Chair, S S.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Castlereagh, Viscount
Denman, Hon. R. O.


Albery, l. J.
Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)
Drewe, C.


Apsley, Lord
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)


Aske, Sir R. W.
Channon, H.
Dugdale, Major T. L.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Chapman, A. (Ruthergten)
Duggan, H. J.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Chorlton, A. E. L.
Duncan, J. A. L.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Christie, J. A.
Dunglass, Lord


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Clydesdale, Marquess of
Dunne, P. R. R.


Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)
Colfox, Major W. P.
Eastwood, J. F.


Blair, Sir R.
Colman, N. C. D.
Eckersley, P. T.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J.
Emery, J. F.


Boulton, W. W.
Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Emmott, C. E. G. C.


flower, Comdr. R. T.
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Emrys-Evans, P. V.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh.W.)
Entwistle, C. F.


Brass, Sir W.
Craddock, Sir R. H.
Errington, E.


Brlscoe, Capt. R. G.
Craven-Ellis, W.
Ersklne Hill, A. G.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Fildes, Sir H.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Croom-.Johnson, R. P.
Findlay, Sir E.


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Crossley, A. C.
Fleming, E. L.


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Crowder, J. F. E,
Furness, S. N.


Burton, Col. H. W.
Cruddas, Col. B.
Gibson, C. G.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovll)
Glucksteln, L. H.




Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Selley, H. R.


Goodman, Col. A. W.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Shakespeare, G. H.


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Gridley, Sir A. B.
Markham, S. F.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Grimston, R. V.
Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Guest, Maj. Hon. O.(C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.


Guy, J. C. M.
Mellor, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Hanbury, Sir C.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Hannah, I. C.
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Sumervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.


Harbord, A.
Moreing, A. C.
Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.


Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Morris, J. P. (Salford N.)
Spens, W. P.


Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester)
Storey, S.


Herbert, Captain S. (Abbey)
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


Holmes, J. S.
Munro, P.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H. H.
Strauss. H. G. (Norwich)


Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Horsbrugh, Florence
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Hulbert; N. J.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Hume, Sir G. H.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Sutcliffe, H.


Hunter, T.
Palmer, G. E. H.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Jarvis, Sir J. J.
Penny, Sir G.
Tate, Mavis C.


Joel, D. J. B.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Jones, L. (Swansea, W.)
Petherick, M.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Pilkington, R.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Kirkpatrick, W. M.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Touche, G. C.


Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Radford, E. A.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Latham, Sir P.
Ralkes, H. V. A. M.
Tryon. Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Lees-Jones, J.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.


Leighten, Major B. E. P.
Ramsbotham, H.
Turton, R. H.


Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Ramsden, Sir E.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Lewis, O.
Rankin, R.
Ward, Irene (Wallsend)


Liddall, W. S.
Rayner, Major R. H.
Warrender, Sir V.


Lindsay, K. M.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Reid, Captain A. Cunningham
Wayland, Sir W. A.


Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Reid, W. Allen (Derby)
Wells, S. R.


Loftus, P. C.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Ropner, Colonel L.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Rowlands, G.
Wise, A. R.


McCorquodale, M. S.
Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Wragg, H.


McEwen, Capt. H. J. F.
Salmon, Sir I.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


McKie, J. H.
Salt, E. W.



Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.
Sandys, E. D.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES—


Maitland, A.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.
Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert




Ward and Sir James Blindell.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 213; Noes, 134.

CLAUSE 7. —(Power to add or remove goods to or from free list, and to charge certain duties for periods.)

10.48 p.m.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I beg to move, "That the Clause be postponed."
I rise to move this manuscript Amendment for the reason which those present in the Committee during the discussion on the last Clause will readily appreciate. I should have liked to have pursued the ordinary course of raising the question in relation to Clause 7 on the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," but you have ruled that if I took that course it would be too late to move the postponement of the Clause. I confess frankly that I do not know precisely the significance of this Clause, but it is clear to me that it involves principles very similar to those we have been discussing under Clause 6. It empowers the Treasury to put duties up and down according to its will in certain ways, and it involves an entirely new principle in this House. We have had no explanation of the Clause at any stage of the discussion of the financial proposals, and it is impossible for us to judge whether it is a simple proposal or an exceedingly complicated one, as complicated as, or possibly more complicated than, the principles underlying Clause 6. We should have some information regarding the fundamental ideas underlying the Clause before we can discuss it, and we want to know whether there are any underlying agreements such as those referred to in connection with Clause 6. For these reasons I propose to postpone the Clause.

10.51 p.m.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I was not present at the discussion on the recent Clause to which the hon. Member has made allusion, but his proposal seems to be the somewhat astonishing one to postpone this Clause without hearing any explanation of what it does.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: We had an animated discussion on Clause 6, and the Government spokesman was evidently willing to consider the postponement of

Clause 6, but the Deputy-Chairman ruled that having started a discussion on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," it was not open to anyone to move to postpone the Clause. Therefore, as I have explained, I was precluded from taking the course which I should naturally have done of asking for an explanation first.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The position in this case, as I understand it, is that I am not in the same position as the Minister who preceded me, in that I am not willing to postpone discussion of this Clause. It is a simple Clause and does not involve any mystery, or subterranean agreement, or any new principle. At present we can—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Debate on the question that consideration of a Clause be postponed is extremely limited. It is expressly laid down that it must not be on the merits of the Clause but on the reasons for postponement.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: In that case I can only assure the Committee that I have an adequate explanation and hope to have the opportunity of presenting it.

Mr. BELLENGER: Would the Chancellor give us that explanation in the form of a White Paper?

10.54 p.m.

Mr. BEVAN: I would be the last person to question your Ruling, Captain Bourne, and I know that you have to rule in accordance with the procedure of the Rouse, but I submit that the nature of the Ruling you have given earlier is such as to make it practically impossible for the Committee to give adequate attention to the matters before it. We were unable to discuss the matter on the last occasion, and have voted on a Clause about which there is complete mystery. We are now precluded from having an explanation of what this Clause is. If the Committee find after an explanation has been made that the Clause is one they do not understand we can neither discuss it nor postpone it, but simply


have to vote on it. The procedure of the House should not be so interpreted as to frustrate the desires of the Committee. I submit in all seriousness that what has happened this evening is not consistent with the high position occupied by this Chamber in the Parliaments of the world.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member will be good enough to look at the precedents dealing with the postponement of a Clause—and there are a good many of them—he will find that discussion on such occasions is limited strictly to the reasons for postponement and must not deal with the merits of the Clause.

Sir P. HARRIS: Could we not have an explanation from the Chancellor as to why the Clause cannot be postponed?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think I heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer say that he had nothing to conceal in the Clause.

Mr. BEVAN: Nothing that has happened this evening would give the Committee the right to attach any weight at all to the Chancellor's assurance. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I do not make the statement in any offensive way. But neither on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill nor at any other previous stage were Members of the Committee put in possession of the actual meaning of the proposals now before the Committee. It looks as though the Government are trying to get legislation through by stealth—trying to sneak it through—which seems a most undignified procedure from the point of view of all parties. The interpretation of the Rules of Order ought not to preclude a representative of the Government placing the Committee in possession of the meaning of the Clause. We are now in the absurd position that, if we do not understand the Clause, we merely have to put up with our own ignorance on the matter—and it is not as though the ignorance were confined only to Members of this party, because Members opposite have also declared their inability to understand the Clause. It ought to be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to explain the Clause now before us, without making it impossible for the Committee to postpone further

consideration of the Clause if they so desire.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have consulted almost all the Rulings that have been given on the subject and they are to the effect which I have already indicated.

10.58 p.m.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: Clauses 6 and 7 are part of the same scheme which the Government are now bringing before the Committee and the same kind of difficulty in which we found ourselves on Clause 6 will arise on Clause 7 once we embark on a discussion of it. The Chancellor was not present to see the complete bewilderment in which we were placed by the procedure on Clause 6. It became clear after the discussion on that Clause had proceeded for a few minutes that the Committee had not sufficient information about it to enable Members to enter upon upon an intelligible discussion of it. The only information we had was the Minister's speech and it became evident that we would require documentary preparation before discussing the subject.
It was also clear that if the Government had been able to do so, under the Rules of Order, they would have taken into consideration our suggestion that the Clause should be postponed. That, however, could not be done and in order to mark our view of the manner in which the subject had been dealt with, we moved to report Progress on that Clause. In this case also the Committee ought to have been put in possession of information about the complications of this Clause before being called upon to deal with it. The fact that that was not done is the responsibility of the Government. It could have been done on Second Reading, but that opportunity was not taken. Again, we move the postponement of this Clause in order to express our view that the unfortunate circumstances in which the Committee finds itself are the responsibility of the Government, and our Motion for postponement is a Motion of Censure on the Government for the manner in which they have conducted this Bill.

Question put, "That the Clause be postponed."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 134; Noes, 212.

Division No. 222.]
AYES.
[10.40 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Dunne, P. R. R.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Channon, H.
Eastwood, J. F.


Agnow, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Eckersley, P. T.


Albery, I. J.
Christie, J. A.
Emery, J. F.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Clydesdale, Marquess of
Emrys-Evans, P. V.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Colfox, Major W. P.
Entwistle, C. F.


Baldwin. Rt. Hon. Stanley
Colman, N. C. D.
Errington, E.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J.
Erskine Hill, A. G.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Fildes, Sir H.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Findlay, Sir E.


Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)
Cooper, Rt.Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh,W.)
Fleming, E. L.


Blair, Sir R.
Craddock, Sir R. H.
Furness, S. N.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Craven-Ellis, W.
Gibson, C. G.


Boulton, W. W.
Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Gluckstein, L. H.


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Goodman, Col. A. W.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Crossley, A. C.
Gridley, Sir A. B.


Brass, Sir W.
Crowder, J. F. E.
Grimston, R. V.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Cruddas, Col. B.
Guest, Maj. Hon. O.(C'mb'rw'll,N.W.)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovll)
Guy, J. C. M.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H C. (Newbury)
Dawson, Sir P.
Hanbury, Sir C.


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
De Chair, S. S.
Hannah, I. C.


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.


Burton, Col. H. W.
Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.
Harbord, A.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Drewe, C.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)


Cartland, J. R. H.
Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.


Cary, R. A.
Dugdale, Major T. L.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.


Castlereagh, Viscount
Duggan, H. J.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Duncan, J. A. L.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)


Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)
Dunglass, Lord
Herbert, Captain S. (Abbey)




Holmes. J. S.
Moreing, A. C.
Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.


Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Horsbrugh, Florence
Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester)
Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Mulrhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.


Hulbert, N. J.
Munro, P.
Spens, W. P.


Hume, Sir G. H.
Nail, Sir j.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Hunter, T.
Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H. H.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Jarvis. Sir J. J.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Storey, S.


Joel. D. J. B.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G.
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


Jones, L. (Swansea, W.)
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Keeling, E. H.
Palmer, G. E. H.
Srauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Penny, Sir G.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Kerr, J. G. (Scottish Universities;
Perkins, W. R. D.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)


Kirkpatrick, W. M.
Petherick, M.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Pilkington, R. 
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Latham, Sir P.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Sutcllffe, H.


Lees-Jones, J.
Radford, E. A.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Tate, Mavis C.


Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Lewis, O.
Ramsbotham, H.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Liddall, W. S.
Ramsden, Sir E.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Llewellin, Lleut.-Col. J. J.
Rankln, R.
Touche, G. C.


Lloyd, G. W.
Rayner, Major R. H.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Reed, A. C. (Exater)
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Lottus, P. C.
Reid, Captain A. Cunningham
Tutnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.


Lovat Fraser, J. A.
Reid, W. Allen (Derby)
Turton, R. H.


Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Remer, J. R.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Ward, Irene (Wallsend)


McCorquodale, M. S.
Ropner, Colonel L.
Warrender, Sir V.


Macdonald. Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Water-house, Captain C.


McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Rowlands, G.
Wayland, Sir W. A.


McKie, J. H.
Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)
Wells, S. R.


Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Saimon, Sir I.
Wilson, Lt.-Col Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Salt. E. W.
Windsor-Clive, Lleut.-Colonel G.


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon H. D, R.
Sandys, E. D.
Wise, A. R.


Markham, S. F.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.
Selley, H. R.
Wragg, H.


Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Shakespeare, G. H.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)



Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Fortar)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.-


Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Shepperson, Sir E. W.
Lleut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward




and Sir James Blindell.




NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
McGovern, J.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Foot, D. M.
MacLaren, A.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Gardner, B. W.
Maclean, N.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
MacNeill, Weir, L.


Adamson, W. M.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Marklew, E.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Marshal, F.


Ammon, C. G.
Crentell, D. R.
Mathers, G.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Maxton, J.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Messer, F.


Banfield, J. W.
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Montague, F.


Barnes, A. J.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Morrison, Rt. Hn. H. (Ha'kn'y, S.)


Barr, J.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Batey. J.
Hardle, G, D.
Naylor, T. E.


Bellenger, F.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Oliver, G. H.


Benson, G.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Owen, Major G.


Bevan, A.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Paling, W.


Broad, F. A.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Parker, J.


Bromfield, W.
Hills, A. (Pontetract)
Parkinson, J. A.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Holland, A.
Pethlck-Lawrence, F. W.


Buchanan, G.
Hopkin, D.
Potts, J.


Burke, W. A.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Price, M. P.


Cape, T.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Pritt, D. N.


Chater, D.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Rlley, B.


Cluse, W. S.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Rltson, J


Cocks, F. S.
Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Compton, J.
Kelly, W. T.
Rothschild, J. A. de


Cove, W. G.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Rowson, G.


Crlpps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Kirby, B. V.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Daggar, G.
Klrkwood, D.
Sexton, T. M.


Dalton, H.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Shinwell, E.


Davies, D. L. (Pontyprldd)
Lathan, G.
Short, A.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Lawson, J. J.
Silverman, S. S.


Davies. S. O. (Merthyr)
Lee, F.
Simpson, F. B.


Day, H.
Leonard, W.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Dobble, W.
Leslle, J. R.
Smith, E. (Sioke)


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Logan, D. G.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Lunn, W.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Evans. D. O. (Cardigan)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Sorensen, R. W.


Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
McGhee. H. G.
Stephen, C.







Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)
Watson, W. McL.
Wilson, G. H. (Attercliffe)


Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)
Westwood, J.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
White, H. Graham
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Thurtle, E.
Whiteley, W.



Tinker, J. J.
Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Vlant, S. P.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)
Mr. John and Mr. Groves.


Watkins, F. C.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)

Division No. 223.]
AYES.
[11.0 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Owen, Major G.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Paling, W.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Parker, J.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Groves, T. E.
Parkinson. J. A.


Adamson, W. M.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Pethick-Lawrence. F. W.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A, V. (H'lsbr.)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Potts, J.


Ammon, C. G.
Hardie, G. D.
Price, M. P.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Harris, Sir P. A.
Pritt, D. N.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Banfield, J. W.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Riley, B.


Barnes, A. J.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Ritson, J.


Barr, J.
Holland, A.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Batey, J.
Hopkin, D.
Rothschild, J. A. de


Bellenger, F.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Rowson, G.


Benson, G.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Seely, Sir H. M.


Bevan, A.
John, W.
Sexton, T. M.


Broad, F. A.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Short, A.


Bromfield, W.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Silverman, S. S.


Brooke, W.
Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Simpson, F. B.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Buchanan, G.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Burke, W. A.
Kirby, B. V.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Cape, T.
Kirkwood, D.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Chater, D.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G
Sorensen, R. W.


Cluso, W. S.
Lathan, G.
Stephen, C.


Cocks. F. S.
Lawson, J. J.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Compton, J.
Lee, F.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Cove, W. G.
Leonard, W.
Taylor. R. J. (Morpeth)


Cripps. Hon. Sir Stafford
Leslie, J. R.
Thurtie, E.


Daggar, G.
Logan, D. G.
Tinker, J J.


Dalton, H.
Lunn, W.
Vlant, S. P.


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Walker, J.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
McGhee, H. G.
Watkins, F. C.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
McGovern, J.
Watson, W. McL.


Day, H.
MacLaren, A.
Westwood, J.


Dobbie, W.
Maclean, N.
White, H. Graham


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
MacNeill, Weir, L.
Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Markiew, E.
Williams. E. J. (Ogmore)


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Marshall, F.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Maxton, J.
Wilson. C. H. (Attercliffe)


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Messer, F.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Foot. D. M.
Montague, F.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Gardner, B. W.
Morrison, Rt. Hn. H. (Ha'kn'y, S.)



George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Naylor, T. E.
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Mathers.


Grenfell, D. R.
Oliver, G. H.





NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Christle, J. A.
Furness, S. N.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Colfox, Major W. P.
Gibson, C. G.


Agnew. Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Colman, N. C. D.
Gluckstein, L. H.


Albery, I. J.
Colville. Lt.-Col. D. J.
Goodman, Col. A. W.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Gridley, Sir A. B.


Apsley, Lord
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Grimston, R. V.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Guest, Maj. Hon. O.(C'mb'rw'll,N.W.)


Atholl, Duchess of
Craddock, Sir R. H.
Guy, J. C. M.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Craven-Ellis, W.
Hanbury, Sir C.


Baldwin-Webb. Col. J.
Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Hannah, I. C.


Balfour. Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Crossley, A. C.
Harbord, A.


Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)
Crowder, J. F. E.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)


Blair, Sir R.
Cruddas, Col. B.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.


Blinded, Sir J.
Dawson, Sir P.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.


Boothby, R. J. G.
De Chair, S. S.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-


Boulton, W. W.
Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)
Herbert, Captain S. (Abbey)


Boyce. H. Leslie
Dugdale, Major T. L.
Holmes. J. S.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Duggan, H. J.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Duncan, J. A. L.
Hore-Belisha. Rt. Hon. L.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Dunglass. Lord
Horsbrugh, Florence


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Dunne, P. R. R.
Hudson. Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Eastwood, J. F.
Hulbert, N. J.


Burton, Col. H. W.
Eckersley, P. T.
Hume, Sir G. H.


Butler. R. A.
Emery, J. F.
Hunter, T.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Emmott, C. E. G. C.
James, Wing-Commander A. W.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Jarvis. Sir J. J.


Castlereagh, Viscount
Entwistle, C. F.
Joel, D. J. B.


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Errington, E.
Jones, L. (Swansea. W.)


Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)
Erskine Hill, A. G.
Keeling, E. H.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Fildes, Sir H.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)


Channon, H.
Findlay, Sir E.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)


Chapman, A. (Ruthergien)
Fleming, E. L.
Kirkpatrick, W. M.







Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Spens, W. P.


Latham, Sir P.
Palmer, G. E. H.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'I'd)


Lees-Jones, J.
Penny, Sir G.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Storey, S.


Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Petherick, M.
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


Lewis, O.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Liddall, W. S.
Radford, E. A.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Lloyd, G. W.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Ramsbotham, H.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Loftus, P. C.
Ramsden, Sir E.
Sutcliffe, H.


Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Rankin, R.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Rayner, Major R. H.
Tate, Mavis C.


MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


McCorquodale, M. S.
Reid, Captain A. Cunningham
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Reid, W. Allen (Derby)
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Remer, J. R.
Touche, G. C.


McKie, J. H.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.
Ropner, Colonel L.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.


Makins. Brig.-Gen. E.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Turton, R. H.


Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Rowlands, G.
Wakefield, W. W.


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Runciman. Rt. Hon. W.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Markham, S. F.
Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)
Ward, Irene (Wallsend)


Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Waterhouse. Captain C.


Mayhew. Lt.-Col. J.
Salmon, Sir I.
Wayland, Sir W. A.


Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Salt, E. W.
Wells, S. R.


Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Sandys, E. D.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Mltcheson. Sir G. G.
Selley, H. R.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Moreing, A. C.
Shakespeare, G. H.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
Wise, A. R.


Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Womersiey, Sir W. J.


Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester)
Shepperson, Sir E. W.
Wragg, H.


Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Munro, P.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.



Nall, Sir J.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H. H.
Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.
Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert


O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.
Ward and Major George Davies.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. BENSON: I hope that we are going to have the promised explanation from the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

11.10 p.m.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I shall be very glad to give the explanation for which the hon. Member asked. This Clause has been inserted in the Bill at the instance of the Import Duties Advisory Committee, and its purpose is to enable certain changes to be made in duties for a limited period of time. It does not really introduce any new principle, as the hon. Member thought, because we have at present the power to do the same thing, only we have to do it by two Orders instead of one. For example, if it is intended to add an article to the Schedule, that is to say, to exempt it from duty for a limited period, first art Order has to be made exempting it from the duty and then, when the time has elapsed, another Order has to be made which puts it under the duty again as it was before. This Clause enables us to say in the Order that it is only to operate for a certain specified period of time. That is the whole purpose of the Clause,

and I think the hon. Member will see that there is nothing very sinister in it.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Let us be quite clear. Under the existing system, as I understand it, when it is proposed to increase a tariff it is necessary to have an Order which must be confirmed by this House; but when it is proposed to lower a tariff is it necessary for the Order to be confirmed by the House? Under the new procedure only a single step will he necessary. Do I understand that in the case of any Order of that kind the usual acceptance subsequently by this House is required?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: There is the same principle, that where a duty is imposed there has to be an affirmative Resolution of the House, but where no duty is imposed then a negative Resolution is all that is required.

Sir F. ACLAND: Can the Chancellor give us a definite assurance that this procedure will not result in taking out of the control of the House any right with regard to deciding on a report from the Import Duties Advisory Committee which the House has hitherto had?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, I think I can give a definite assurance to that


effect. I cannot see how this proposal will make any difference to the control of the House. The House can debate the Order and debate the time which is specified in the Order. The only difference is that the House will have one opportunity of doing it, whereas they have hitherto had two opportunities.

11.13 p.m.

Mr. ALEXANDER: I am not at all clear about this, according to my reading of the present procedure. I hope the Chancellor will forgive me for speaking in that way, but I get many experiences of Import Duties Advisory Committee procedure. At present the Committee, after they have made a recommendation to the Treasury for an addition to the free list, are not bound to lay before Parliament an Order for an affirmative Resolution. All that is necessary at the moment is to make no Order and then there is no need for an affirmative Resolution. What is going to happen under this new Clause? The Government will take power to grant relief from a duty for a certain period, either under the First Schedule of the Act of 1932, or under Section 16 of the Finance Act of 1933, or under the Act of 1935. That period may be for as long as 12 months or two years. During that period many of those who are engaged in the trade in that commodity may earnestly desire its retention in the free list, but under this procedure, at the end of the speci-

fied period for which it was put on the free list it will automatically come under the duty again. There will be no opportunity, on either procedure as laid down at the present time under the Import Duties Act, 1932, of discussing and opposing that particular reimposition of duty, for however long may have been the period—it may be a year, or two or more years—of its inclusion in the free list.

That is a most objectionable procedure. I can see that it is on all fours with the procedure that has been followed for years by the Australian Tariff Board. The Government are becoming so thoroughly steeped in the wire-pulling and the logrolling of Tariff procedure, that they are gradually putting as much of it out of the way of the House of Commns as they can. This is only one of the steps. Clause 6, about which we have had no clear explanation to-night, is another mongrel adaptation of some of the present procedure of the Australian Tariff Board. I do not accept for a moment the position as put to us by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We shall get no opportunity of really taking an affirmative Resolution one way or the other on this Order, once this Clause has become part of the Statute of 1936.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 199; Noes, 128.

Division No. 224.]
AYES.
11.18 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Christie, J. A.
Findlay, Sir E.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Colman, N. C. D.
Fleming, E. L.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J.
Furness, S. N.


Albery, I. J.
Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Gibson, C. G.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Cooks, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Gluckstein, L. H.


Apsley, Lord
Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh.W.)
Goodman, Col. A. W.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Craddock, Sir R. H.
Gridley, Sir A. B.


Atholl, Duchess of
Craven-Ellis, W.
Grimston, R. V.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Guy, J. C. M.


Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)
Crossley, A. C.
Hanbury, Sir C.


Blair, Sir R.
Crowder, J. F. E.
Hannah, I. C.


Blindell, Sir J.
Cruddas, Col. B.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovll)
Harbord, A.


Boulton, W. W.
De Chair, S. S.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Dorman-Smith, Major R. K.
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Dugdale, Major T. L.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Duggan, H. J.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Nowbury)
Duncan, J. A. L.
Holmes, J. S.


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Dunglass, Lord
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.


Butler, R. A.
Dunne, P. R. R.
Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Eastwood, I. f.
Horsbrugh, Florence


Cartland, J. R. H.
Eckersley, P. T.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)


Castlereagh, Viscount
Emery, J. F.
Hulbert, N. J.


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Hume, Sir G. H.


Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Hunter, T.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Errington, E.
James, Wing-Commander A. W.


Channon, H.
Ersklne Hill, A. G.
Jarvis, Sir J. J.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Flldes, Sir H.
Joel, D. J. B.




Jones, L. (Swansea, W.)
Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H. H.
Spens, W. P.


Keeling, E. H.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Km, J. G. (Scottish Universities)
Palmer, G. E. H.
Storey, S.


Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Penny, Sir G.
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


Latham, Sir P.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Lees-Jones, J.
Petherick, M.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Radford, E. A.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Lewis, O.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Sutcliffe, H.


Llddall, W. S.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Ramsbotham, H.
Tate, Mavis C.


Lloyd, G. W.
Ramsden, Sir E.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Rankin, R.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Loftus. P. C.
Rayner, Major R. H.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Touche, G. C.


Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Reid, Captain A. Cunningham
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Reid, W. Allen (Derby)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.


MaCorquodale, M. S.
Remer, J. R.
Turton, R. H.


Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Wakefield, W. W.


McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Ropner, Colonel L.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


McKie, J. H.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbrldge)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.
Rowlands, G.
Ward, Irene (Wallsend)


Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)
Waterhouee, Captain C.


Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Wells, S. R.


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Salmon, Sir I.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Markham, S. F.
Salt. E. W.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.
Sandys, E. D.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


May hew, Lt.-Col. J.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Selley, H. R.
Wise, A. R.


Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Shakespeare, G. H.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
Wragg, H.


Mitcheson, Sir G. G.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Moreing, A. C.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.



Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.
Mr. James Stuart and Commander


Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Southby.




NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Owen, Major G.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Paling, W.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Parker, J.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Groves, T. E.
Parkinson, J. A.


Adamson, W. M.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Pethick Lawrence, F. W.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Potts, J.


Ammon, C. G.
Hardle, G. D.
Price, M. P.


Anderson. F. (Whitehaven)
Harris, Sir P. A.
Pritt, D. N.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Banfield, J. W.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Rlley, B.


Barnes, A. J.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Ritson, J.


Barr, J.
Holland, A.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helen)


Batey, J.
Hopkin, D.
Rothschild, J. A. de


Bellenger, F.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Rowson, G.


Benson, G.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Seely, Sir H. M.


Bevan, A.
John, W.
Sexton, T. M.


Broad, F. A.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Short, A.


Bromfield, W.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Silverman, S. S.


Brooke, W.
Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Simpson, F. B.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Buchanan, G,
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Burke, W. A.
Kirby, B. V.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B, Lees- (K'ly)


Cape, T.
Kirkwood, D.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Chafer, D.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Sorensen, R. W.


Cluse, W. S.
Lathan, G.
Stephen, G.


Cocks, F. S.
Lawson, J. J.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Compton, J.
Lee, F.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Leonard, W.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Daggar, G.
Leslie, J. R.
Thurtle, E.


Dalton, H.
Logan, D. G.
Tinker, J. J.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Lunn, W.
Vlant, S. P.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Watkins, F. C.


Day, H.
McGhee, H. G.
Watson, W. McL.


Dobble, W.
McGovern, J.
Westwood, J.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
MacLaren, A.
White, H. Graham


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Maclean, N.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
MacNeill, Weir, L.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Marklew, E.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Marshall, F.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Foot, D. M.
Maxton, J.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Gardner, B. W.
Messer, F.



George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Morrison, Rt. Hn. H. (Ha'kn'y, S.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Naylor, T. E.
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Mathers.


Grenfell, D. R.
Oliver, G. H.

Ordered, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—[Mr. Chamberlain.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-eight Minutes after Eleven o'clock.